Promoting Patient Safety Through Patient Engagement at the Organisational Level: A Delphi-Based Needs Assessment Among Patient and Family Advisory Councils

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Larissa Brust, Yannick Blum, Matthias Weigl
{"title":"Promoting Patient Safety Through Patient Engagement at the Organisational Level: A Delphi-Based Needs Assessment Among Patient and Family Advisory Councils","authors":"Larissa Brust,&nbsp;Yannick Blum,&nbsp;Matthias Weigl","doi":"10.1111/hex.70319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) are increasingly recognised as a promising approach for improving patient safety (PS) through patient engagement (PE) at the organisational level. However, PFAC stakeholders often lack the necessary knowledge and competence to engage effectively in PS-related issues with healthcare organisations. Moreover, evidence on specific needs for knowledge and competence improvement remains limited, hindering the development of future interventions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed (a) to identify needs for PS-related competency and knowledge improvement among PFAC stakeholders and (b) to assess current and desired levels of PFAC engagement, roles and factors influencing PFACs' work.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>We established an exploratory mixed-methods design with a modified, two-round Delphi approach. We first used qualitative content analysis to analyse interview data (Round 1) and then consolidated statements for a quantitative questionnaire (Round 2). Responses were analysed descriptively and for consensus (criterion: 85% agreement). Mixed-methods analysis was conducted sequentially and convergently.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting and Participants</h3>\n \n <p>PFAC stakeholders are affiliated with German healthcare organisations, including patient representatives and professionals from healthcare organisations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Variable and Outcome Studied</h3>\n \n <p>(a) Needs for competency improvement on PS and communication, self-assessed knowledge and preferred training formats and (b) PFAC engagement levels, roles and factors influencing PFACs' work.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Across 6 different oncology-focused PFACs from German university hospitals, 19 stakeholders participated across both rounds. Seventeen needs for competency improvement in PS and communication were identified. After establishing consensus, 10 distinct domains of need were agreed upon (e.g., PS fundamentals, legal basis for PE and respectful communication). While PFAC engagement in PS was inconsistent, participants expressed a strong desire for further involvement. Key implementation factors included limited access to organisational processes, lack of resources and unequal conditions between research- and care-oriented councils.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion and Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study highlights the need for targeted training and structural support to strengthen PFACs' role in PS. Competency improvement and role clarity were deemed essential for effective collaboration. Enhancing PFAC engagement in PS requires tailored educational programmes, transparent structures and institutional support. This study provides an empirical basis for interventions to improve PE in PS at the organisational level.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>A patient representative was actively involved throughout the research process, contributing to the development of study materials and providing independent feedback on interview guides and questionnaires. Her input helped to shape the materials, improve their accessibility to lay audiences and ensure the inclusion of patient-relevant issues. The research team discussed her feedback in detail and revised study materials accordingly. Beyond the content presented in this manuscript, she contributed to shaping a subsequent intervention that emerged from the study's needs assessment, which was designed as a participatory approach to incorporate patient and stakeholder perspectives from the outset. In addition, she and participating stakeholders of the patient advisory councils are committed to disseminating project findings and developing recommendations to help translate research into practice from a patient perspective.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Clinical Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>The study was pre-registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00034733).</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70319","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70319","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) are increasingly recognised as a promising approach for improving patient safety (PS) through patient engagement (PE) at the organisational level. However, PFAC stakeholders often lack the necessary knowledge and competence to engage effectively in PS-related issues with healthcare organisations. Moreover, evidence on specific needs for knowledge and competence improvement remains limited, hindering the development of future interventions.

Objective

This study aimed (a) to identify needs for PS-related competency and knowledge improvement among PFAC stakeholders and (b) to assess current and desired levels of PFAC engagement, roles and factors influencing PFACs' work.

Design

We established an exploratory mixed-methods design with a modified, two-round Delphi approach. We first used qualitative content analysis to analyse interview data (Round 1) and then consolidated statements for a quantitative questionnaire (Round 2). Responses were analysed descriptively and for consensus (criterion: 85% agreement). Mixed-methods analysis was conducted sequentially and convergently.

Setting and Participants

PFAC stakeholders are affiliated with German healthcare organisations, including patient representatives and professionals from healthcare organisations.

Main Variable and Outcome Studied

(a) Needs for competency improvement on PS and communication, self-assessed knowledge and preferred training formats and (b) PFAC engagement levels, roles and factors influencing PFACs' work.

Results

Across 6 different oncology-focused PFACs from German university hospitals, 19 stakeholders participated across both rounds. Seventeen needs for competency improvement in PS and communication were identified. After establishing consensus, 10 distinct domains of need were agreed upon (e.g., PS fundamentals, legal basis for PE and respectful communication). While PFAC engagement in PS was inconsistent, participants expressed a strong desire for further involvement. Key implementation factors included limited access to organisational processes, lack of resources and unequal conditions between research- and care-oriented councils.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study highlights the need for targeted training and structural support to strengthen PFACs' role in PS. Competency improvement and role clarity were deemed essential for effective collaboration. Enhancing PFAC engagement in PS requires tailored educational programmes, transparent structures and institutional support. This study provides an empirical basis for interventions to improve PE in PS at the organisational level.

Patient or Public Contribution

A patient representative was actively involved throughout the research process, contributing to the development of study materials and providing independent feedback on interview guides and questionnaires. Her input helped to shape the materials, improve their accessibility to lay audiences and ensure the inclusion of patient-relevant issues. The research team discussed her feedback in detail and revised study materials accordingly. Beyond the content presented in this manuscript, she contributed to shaping a subsequent intervention that emerged from the study's needs assessment, which was designed as a participatory approach to incorporate patient and stakeholder perspectives from the outset. In addition, she and participating stakeholders of the patient advisory councils are committed to disseminating project findings and developing recommendations to help translate research into practice from a patient perspective.

Clinical Trial Registration

The study was pre-registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00034733).

通过组织层面的患者参与促进患者安全:患者和家庭咨询委员会之间基于德尔菲的需求评估
患者和家属咨询委员会(PFACs)越来越被认为是通过组织层面的患者参与(PE)来改善患者安全(PS)的有希望的方法。然而,PFAC利益相关者往往缺乏必要的知识和能力,以有效地参与与ps相关的问题与医疗机构。此外,关于提高知识和能力的具体需求的证据仍然有限,阻碍了未来干预措施的发展。本研究旨在(a)确定PFAC利益相关者对ps相关能力和知识改进的需求;(b)评估PFAC目前和期望的参与水平、角色和影响PFAC工作的因素。我们采用改进的两轮德尔菲法建立了一种探索性混合方法设计。我们首先使用定性内容分析来分析访谈数据(第1轮),然后合并报表进行定量问卷调查(第2轮)。对反馈进行描述性分析,以达成共识(标准:85%的一致性)。混合方法分析按顺序收敛进行。环境和参与者PFAC的利益相关者隶属于德国医疗保健组织,包括患者代表和医疗保健组织的专业人员。研究的主要变量和结果(a)改善私人服务和沟通能力的需要、自我评估的知识和首选的培训形式,以及(b)私人服务人员的参与程度、角色和影响私人服务人员工作的因素。结果:来自德国大学医院的6个不同的以肿瘤为重点的PFACs中,19个利益相关者参与了两轮研究。确定了17项PS和沟通能力改进需求。在建立共识后,10个不同的需求领域达成一致(例如,PS基础,PE的法律基础和尊重沟通)。虽然PFAC对PS的参与不一致,但与会者表达了进一步参与的强烈愿望。关键的实施因素包括获得组织程序的机会有限、缺乏资源以及以研究和护理为导向的理事会之间的不平等条件。本研究强调了有针对性的培训和结构性支持的必要性,以加强PFACs在PS中的作用。能力提高和角色明确被认为是有效合作的必要条件。加强PFAC对PS的参与需要量身定制的教育计划、透明的结构和机构支持。本研究为在组织层面上改善PS中PE的干预提供了实证基础。患者或公众贡献患者代表在整个研究过程中积极参与,为研究材料的开发做出贡献,并在访谈指南和问卷调查中提供独立反馈。她的投入有助于塑造材料,提高外行读者的可及性,并确保纳入与患者有关的问题。研究小组对她的反馈进行了详细的讨论,并对研究材料进行了相应的修改。除了本手稿中提出的内容,她还参与制定了从研究需求评估中产生的后续干预措施,该干预措施被设计为一种参与式方法,从一开始就将患者和利益相关者的观点结合起来。此外,她和参与患者咨询委员会的利益相关者致力于传播项目发现并制定建议,以帮助从患者的角度将研究转化为实践。该研究已在德国临床试验注册中心(ID: DRKS00034733)进行预注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信