Nancy Pandhi, Nora Jacobson, Madison Crowder, Andrew Quanbeck, Sarah Davis
{"title":"确定患者参与初级医疗质量改进的潜在结果:改良德尔菲研究。","authors":"Nancy Pandhi, Nora Jacobson, Madison Crowder, Andrew Quanbeck, Sarah Davis","doi":"10.1111/jep.14199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>A barrier to dedicating resources towards patient engagement in primary care quality improvement is the lack of clearly identified outcomes that might result from these initiatives.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>We sought to identify these potential outcomes at three healthcare levels as defined by the Institute of Medicine: 1) Micro/Direct Care; 2) Meso/Microsystem; and 3) Macro/Clinic/System using a Modified Delphi technique.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two focus groups of patients and primary care clinician leaders generated a first set of outcomes. These outcomes were then vetted and expanded through three web-based surveys sent to twelve national experts. Experts indicated the level of agreement with prior elicited outcomes and generated potential new outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Included outcomes achieved at least 80% agreement. The final list of 46 consensus-derived outcomes was categorized across levels. 22 were at the Micro-level, 9 were at the Meso-level, and 15 were at the Macro-level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest outcomes across all health system levels have the potential for progress when patients are engaged in primary care quality improvement initiatives. Future programs should consider validating and measuring these outcomes as part of their interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying potential outcomes of patient engagement in primary care quality improvement: a modified Delphi study.\",\"authors\":\"Nancy Pandhi, Nora Jacobson, Madison Crowder, Andrew Quanbeck, Sarah Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.14199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>A barrier to dedicating resources towards patient engagement in primary care quality improvement is the lack of clearly identified outcomes that might result from these initiatives.</p><p><strong>Aims and objectives: </strong>We sought to identify these potential outcomes at three healthcare levels as defined by the Institute of Medicine: 1) Micro/Direct Care; 2) Meso/Microsystem; and 3) Macro/Clinic/System using a Modified Delphi technique.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two focus groups of patients and primary care clinician leaders generated a first set of outcomes. These outcomes were then vetted and expanded through three web-based surveys sent to twelve national experts. Experts indicated the level of agreement with prior elicited outcomes and generated potential new outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Included outcomes achieved at least 80% agreement. The final list of 46 consensus-derived outcomes was categorized across levels. 22 were at the Micro-level, 9 were at the Meso-level, and 15 were at the Macro-level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest outcomes across all health system levels have the potential for progress when patients are engaged in primary care quality improvement initiatives. Future programs should consider validating and measuring these outcomes as part of their interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"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.14199\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14199","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}
Identifying potential outcomes of patient engagement in primary care quality improvement: a modified Delphi study.
Rationale: A barrier to dedicating resources towards patient engagement in primary care quality improvement is the lack of clearly identified outcomes that might result from these initiatives.
Aims and objectives: We sought to identify these potential outcomes at three healthcare levels as defined by the Institute of Medicine: 1) Micro/Direct Care; 2) Meso/Microsystem; and 3) Macro/Clinic/System using a Modified Delphi technique.
Method: Two focus groups of patients and primary care clinician leaders generated a first set of outcomes. These outcomes were then vetted and expanded through three web-based surveys sent to twelve national experts. Experts indicated the level of agreement with prior elicited outcomes and generated potential new outcomes.
Results: Included outcomes achieved at least 80% agreement. The final list of 46 consensus-derived outcomes was categorized across levels. 22 were at the Micro-level, 9 were at the Meso-level, and 15 were at the Macro-level.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest outcomes across all health system levels have the potential for progress when patients are engaged in primary care quality improvement initiatives. Future programs should consider validating and measuring these outcomes as part of their interventions.
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.