Outcomes in patients with chronic uveitis: which factors matter to patients? A qualitative study

PURPOSE: Outcome measurements currently used in chronic uveitis care fail to cover the full patient perspective. The aim of this study is to develop a conceptual model of the factors that adult patients with chronic uveitis consider to be important when evaluating the impact of their disease and treatment. METHODS: A qualitative study design was used. Twenty chronic uveitis patients were recruited to participate in two focus groups. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis in ATLAS.ti. RESULTS: Coding of the transcripts resulted in a total of 19 codes divided over five themes: 1) disease symptoms and treatment; 2) diagnosis and treatment process; 3) impact on daily functioning; 4) emotional impact; and 5) treatment success factors. CONCLUSION: The conceptual model resulting from this study can contribute to the development of future uveitis specific measures in adults

Multi-stakeholder perspectives in defining health services quality indicators and dimensions

__Objective__ This study aims to advance understanding of globally valid versus country-specific quality dimensions and indicators, as perceived by relevant stakeholders. It specifically addresses patient-level indicators for cataract surgery. __Design__ A mixed-methods case study comparing Singapore and The Netherlands __Setting__ Singapore (2017–2019) and The Netherlands (2014–2015). __Participants__ Stakeholder representatives of cataract care in Singapore and The Netherlands. __Intervention__ Based on the previously identified complete set of stakeholders in The Netherlands, we identified stakeholders of cataract care in Singapore. Stakeholder representatives then established a multi-stakeholder perspective on the quality of cataract care using a concept mapping approach. This yielded a multidimensional cluster map based on multivariate statistical analyses. Consensus-based quality dimensions were subsequently defined during a plenary session. Thereafter, Singaporean dimensions were matched with dimensions obtained in The Netherlands to identify commonalities and differences. __Main outcome measure__ Health-services quality dimensions of cataract care. Results 19 Singaporean stakeholders representing patients, general practitioners, ophthalmologists, nurses, care providers, researchers and clinical auditors defined health-services quality of cataract care using the following eight dimensions: clinical outcome, patient outcomes, surgical process, surgical safety, patient experience, access, cost and standards of care. Compared with the Dutch results, 61% of the indicators were allocated to dimensions of comparable names and compositions. Considerable differences also existed in the composition of some dimensions and the importance attached to indicators. __Conclusions and relevance__ This study on cataract care in Singapore and The Netherlands shows that cataract care quality measurement instruments can share a common international core. At the same time, it emphasises the importance of taking a country-specific multi-stakeholder approach to quality definition and measure

Multi-stakeholder perspectives in defining health-services quality in cataract care

Objective: To develop a method to define a multi-stakeholder perspective on health-service quality that enables the expression of differences in systematically identified stakeholders' perspectives, and to pilot the approach for cataract care. Design: Mixed-method study between 2014 and 2015. Setting: Cataract care in the Netherlands. Participants: Stakeholder representatives. Intervention(s): We first identified and classified stakeholders using stakeholder theory. Participants established a multi-stakeholder perspective on quality of cataract care using concept mapping, this yielded a cluster map based on multivariate statistical analyses. Consensus-based quality dimensions were subsequently defined in a plenary stakeholder session. Main outcome measure(s): Stakeholders and multi-stakeholder perspective on health-service quality. Results: Our analysis identified seven definitive stakeholders, as follows: the Dutch Ophthalmology Society, ophthalmologists, general practitioners, optometrists, health insurers, hospitals and private clinics. Patients, as dependent stakeholders, were considered to lack power by other stakeholders; hence, they were not classified as definitive stakeholders. Overall, 18 stakeholders representing ophthalmologists, general practitioners, optometrists, health insurers, hospitals, private clinics, patients, patient federations and the Dutch Healthcare Institute sorted 125 systematically collected indicators into the seven following clusters: patient centeredness and accessibility, interpersonal conduct and expectations, experienced outcome, clinical outcome, process and structure, medical technical acting and safety. Importance scores from stakeholders directly involved in the cataract service delivery process correlated strongly, as did scores from stakeholders not directly involved in this process. Conclusions: Using a case study on cataract care, the proposed methods enable different views among stakeholders concerning quality dimensions to be systematically revealed, and the stakeholders jointly agreed on these dimensions. The methods helped to unify different quality definitions and facilitated operationalisation of quality measurement in a way that was accepted by relevant stakeholders