Medical oncology patients' preferences with regard to health care: development of a patient-driven questionnaire

BACKGROUND: To improve quality of care for cancer patients, it is important to have an insight on the patient's view on health care and on their specific wishes, needs and preferences, without restriction and without influence of researchers and health care providers. The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire assessing medical oncology patients' preferences for health care based on their own input. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Items were generated using 10 focus group interviews with 51 cancer patients. A preliminary questionnaire was handed out to 681 patients of seven Dutch departments of medical oncology. Explorative factor analysis was carried out on the 386 returned questionnaires (response 57%). RESULTS: Focus group interviews resulted in a preliminary questionnaire containing 136 items. Explorative factor analysis resulted in a definitive questionnaire containing 123 items (21 scales and eight single items). Patients rated expertise, safety, performance and attitude of physicians and nurses as the most important issues in cancer care. CONCLUSION: This questionnaire may be used to assess preferences of cancer patients and to come to a tailored approach of health care that meets patients' wishes and needs

Quantitative data management in quality improvement collaboratives

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Collaborative approaches in quality improvement have been promoted since the introduction of the Breakthrough method. The effectiveness of this method is inconclusive and further independent evaluation of the method has been called for. For any evaluation to succeed, data collection on interventions performed within the collaborative and outcomes of those interventions is crucial. Getting enough data from Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) for evaluation purposes, however, has proved to be difficult. This paper provides a retrospective analysis on the process of data management in a Dutch Quality Improvement Collaborative. From this analysis general failure and success factors are identified.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper discusses complications and dilemma's observed in the set-up of data management for QICs. An overview is presented of signals that were picked up by the data management team. These signals were used to improve the strategies for data management during the program and have, as far as possible, been translated into practical solutions that have been successfully implemented.</p> <p>The recommendations coming from this study are:</p> <p>From our experience it is clear that quality improvement programs deviate from experimental research in many ways. It is not only impossible, but also undesirable to control processes and standardize data streams. QIC's need to be clear of data protocols that do not allow for change. It is therefore minimally important that when quantitative results are gathered, these results are accompanied by qualitative results that can be used to correctly interpret them.</p> <p>Monitoring and data acquisition interfere with routine. This makes a database collecting data in a QIC an intervention in itself. It is very important to be aware of this in reporting the results. Using existing databases when possible can overcome some of these problems but is often not possible given the change objective of QICs.</p> <p>Introducing a standardized spreadsheet to the teams is a very practical and helpful tool in collecting standardized data within a QIC. It is vital that the spreadsheets are handed out before baseline measurements start.</p

Human resources for health policies: a critical component in health policies

In the last few years, increasing attention has been paid to the development of health policies. But side by side with the presumed benefits of policy, many analysts share the opinion that a major drawback of health policies is their failure to make room for issues of human resources. Current approaches in human resources suggest a number of weaknesses: a reactive, ad hoc attitude towards problems of human resources; dispersal of accountability within human resources management (HRM); a limited notion of personnel administration that fails to encompass all aspects of HRM; and finally the short-term perspective of HRM. There are three broad arguments for modernizing the ways in which human resources for health are managed: • the central role of the workforce in the health sector; • the various challenges thrown up by health system reforms; • the need to anticipate the effect on the health workforce (and consequently on service provision) arising from various macroscopic social trends impinging on health systems. The absence of appropriate human resources policies is responsible, in many countries, for a chronic imbalance with multifaceted effects on the health workforce: quantitative mismatch, qualitative disparity, unequal distribution and a lack of coordination between HRM actions and health policy needs. Four proposals have been put forward to modernize how the policy process is conducted in the development of human resources for health (HRH): • to move beyond the traditional approach of personnel administration to a more global concept of HRM; • to give more weight to the integrated, interdependent and systemic nature of the different components of HRM when preparing and implementing policy; • to foster a more proactive attitude among human resources (HR) policy-makers and managers; • to promote the full commitment of all professionals and sectors in all phases of the process. The development of explicit human resources policies is a crucial link in health policies and is needed both to address the imbalances of the health workforce and to foster implementation of the health services reforms

Comparing Homeless Persons’ Care Experiences in Tailored Versus Nontailored Primary Care Programs

Objectives. We compared homeless patients’ experiences of care in health care organizations that differed in their degree of primary care design service tailoring. Methods. We surveyed homeless-experienced patients (either recently or currently homeless) at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) mainstream primary care settings in Pennsylvania and Alabama, a homeless-tailored VA clinic in California, and a highly tailored non-VA Health Care for the Homeless Program in Massachusetts (January 2011-March 2012). We developed a survey, the “Primary Care Quality-Homeless Survey," to reflect the concerns and aspirations of homeless patients. Results. Mean scores at the tailored non-VA site were superior to those from the 3 mainstream VA sites (P < .001). Adjusting for patient characteristics, these differences remained significant for subscales assessing the patient–clinician relationship (P < .001) and perceptions of cooperation among providers (P = .004). There were 1.5- to 3-fold increased odds of an unfavorable experience in the domains of the patient–clinician relationship, cooperation, and access or coordination for the mainstream VA sites compared with the tailored non-VA site; the tailored VA site attained intermediate results. Conclusions. Tailored primary care service design was associated with a superior service experience for patients who experienced homelessness