中国大陆医院姑息治疗中以人为中心的基于结果测量的质量改进方案的过程评价

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Yunyun Dai, Jinfeng Ding, Yongyi Chen, David Holloway, Junchen Guo, Yu Cheng, Claire E Johnson
{"title":"中国大陆医院姑息治疗中以人为中心的基于结果测量的质量改进方案的过程评价","authors":"Yunyun Dai, Jinfeng Ding, Yongyi Chen, David Holloway, Junchen Guo, Yu Cheng, Claire E Johnson","doi":"10.1007/s11136-025-03997-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to understand Chinese palliative care clinicians' experience in integrating the Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) model into their clinical practice and to learn lessons for sustainability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted. Combing semi-structured in-depth interviews with palliative care clinicians guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) with analysis of clinical documents to examine implementation outcomes. Qualitative data were analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive content analysis, quantitative data were presented using frequencies and percentages.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve out of 16 clinicians participated in this study. Six months post-implementation, over half reported successful integration of the model into their unit. Implementation outcomes indicated strong clinician adherence, with all inpatients assessed and 75% of clinicians participating. Eleven sub-themes were identified within the NPT constructs, explaining the mechanisms contributing to its success and failure. These included clinicians' perception of the model's value and effectiveness (Coherence), accurate assessment and effective use of results and quality reports (Collective Action), and a supportive network that fully incorporated clinicians' views (Cognitive Participation), and aligning the PCOC model with existing workflows, reducing redundant tools, and streamlining documentation (Reflexive Monitoring).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To effectively implement a PCOMs-based quality improvement program into routine clinical practice, a \"top-down\" followed by a \"bottom-up\" implementation approach is recommended. Effectively utilizing the program to achieve its value and fit into existing workflows without adding unnecessary workload could ensure its sustainability. Furthermore, in countries and regions where palliative care is emerging, priorities should focus on enhancing clinicians' knowledge, self-efficacy, and supporting multidisciplinary collaboration.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Process evaluation of a person-centred outcome measures-based quality improvement program in a hospital-based palliative care in mainland China.\",\"authors\":\"Yunyun Dai, Jinfeng Ding, Yongyi Chen, David Holloway, Junchen Guo, Yu Cheng, Claire E Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-025-03997-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to understand Chinese palliative care clinicians' experience in integrating the Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) model into their clinical practice and to learn lessons for sustainability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted. Combing semi-structured in-depth interviews with palliative care clinicians guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) with analysis of clinical documents to examine implementation outcomes. Qualitative data were analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive content analysis, quantitative data were presented using frequencies and percentages.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve out of 16 clinicians participated in this study. Six months post-implementation, over half reported successful integration of the model into their unit. Implementation outcomes indicated strong clinician adherence, with all inpatients assessed and 75% of clinicians participating. Eleven sub-themes were identified within the NPT constructs, explaining the mechanisms contributing to its success and failure. These included clinicians' perception of the model's value and effectiveness (Coherence), accurate assessment and effective use of results and quality reports (Collective Action), and a supportive network that fully incorporated clinicians' views (Cognitive Participation), and aligning the PCOC model with existing workflows, reducing redundant tools, and streamlining documentation (Reflexive Monitoring).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To effectively implement a PCOMs-based quality improvement program into routine clinical practice, a \\\"top-down\\\" followed by a \\\"bottom-up\\\" implementation approach is recommended. Effectively utilizing the program to achieve its value and fit into existing workflows without adding unnecessary workload could ensure its sustainability. Furthermore, in countries and regions where palliative care is emerging, priorities should focus on enhancing clinicians' knowledge, self-efficacy, and supporting multidisciplinary collaboration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03997-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03997-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在了解中国姑息治疗临床医生将姑息治疗结局协作(palliative care Outcome Collaboration, PCOC)模式融入临床实践的经验,并从中吸取可持续性的经验教训。方法:采用解释性混合方法进行研究。以规范化过程理论(NPT)为指导,对姑息治疗临床医生进行半结构化深度访谈,并对临床文件进行分析,以检验实施结果。定性数据分析使用归纳和演绎内容分析相结合,定量数据使用频率和百分比。结果:16名临床医生中有12名参与了本研究。实施六个月后,超过一半的人报告成功地将模型集成到他们的单元中。实施结果显示临床医生的依从性很强,所有住院患者都接受了评估,75%的临床医生参与了评估。在《不扩散核武器条约》框架内确定了11个分主题,解释了导致其成功和失败的机制。这些包括临床医生对模型价值和有效性的感知(一致性),准确评估和有效使用结果和质量报告(集体行动),以及完全纳入临床医生观点的支持网络(认知参与),并使PCOC模型与现有工作流程保持一致,减少冗余工具,简化文档(反射性监测)。结论:为了将基于pcoms的质量改进方案有效地实施到常规临床实践中,建议采用“自上而下”后“自下而上”的实施方法。有效地利用程序来实现其价值,并适应现有的工作流程,而不增加不必要的工作量,可以确保其可持续性。此外,在姑息治疗正在兴起的国家和地区,重点应放在提高临床医生的知识、自我效能和支持多学科合作上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Process evaluation of a person-centred outcome measures-based quality improvement program in a hospital-based palliative care in mainland China.

Purpose: This study aimed to understand Chinese palliative care clinicians' experience in integrating the Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) model into their clinical practice and to learn lessons for sustainability.

Methods: An explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted. Combing semi-structured in-depth interviews with palliative care clinicians guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) with analysis of clinical documents to examine implementation outcomes. Qualitative data were analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive content analysis, quantitative data were presented using frequencies and percentages.

Results: Twelve out of 16 clinicians participated in this study. Six months post-implementation, over half reported successful integration of the model into their unit. Implementation outcomes indicated strong clinician adherence, with all inpatients assessed and 75% of clinicians participating. Eleven sub-themes were identified within the NPT constructs, explaining the mechanisms contributing to its success and failure. These included clinicians' perception of the model's value and effectiveness (Coherence), accurate assessment and effective use of results and quality reports (Collective Action), and a supportive network that fully incorporated clinicians' views (Cognitive Participation), and aligning the PCOC model with existing workflows, reducing redundant tools, and streamlining documentation (Reflexive Monitoring).

Conclusions: To effectively implement a PCOMs-based quality improvement program into routine clinical practice, a "top-down" followed by a "bottom-up" implementation approach is recommended. Effectively utilizing the program to achieve its value and fit into existing workflows without adding unnecessary workload could ensure its sustainability. Furthermore, in countries and regions where palliative care is emerging, priorities should focus on enhancing clinicians' knowledge, self-efficacy, and supporting multidisciplinary collaboration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
×
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