scholarly journals 2183 Balancing patient-centeredness and patient safety in the hospitals: The case of pain care and patient satisfaction

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Olena Mazurenko ◽  
Basia Andraka-Christou ◽  
Matthew Bair ◽  
Areeba Kara ◽  
Christopher A. Harle

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This study seeks to understand the relationship between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction among non-surgical, hospitalized patients. As part of this study, we qualitatively examined challenges in delivering safe and patient-centered care through voices of physicians’, and nurses.’ METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We collected data through in-person interviews using semi-structured guides tailored to the informant roles. Study participants came from 1 healthcare system located in a mid-Western state. Each interview lasted 30–45 minutes, was audio-recorded with consent, and transcribed for analysis. Two researchers each coded 17 transcripts for discussions around patient-centeredness (including patient satisfaction, patient experiences), and patient safety for hospitalized patients experiencing pain. Analysis followed a general inductive approach, where researchers identified themes related to the research questions using an open coding technique. They discussed and reached consensus on all codes, and extracted several preliminary themes. The analysis was supported by NVivo software. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The following themes emerged: (1) complex decision-making process to prescribe opioids for hospitalized patients; (2) the role of objective findings in prescribing decisions; (3) bargaining process in prescribing opioids; (4) balancing patient-centeredness and patient safety for selected populations; (5) opioids are the predominant medications for pain care. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Clinicians’ decision to prescribe opioids for nonsurgical hospitalized patients is based on multiple factors, including patient’s condition, patient’s preference for pain medications, or standard hospital’s pain care regimen. Interventions that improve clinicians’ ability to prescribe opioids may be needed to improve delivery of patient-centered and safe pain care.

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 121-122
Author(s):  
Olena Mazurenko ◽  
Justin Blackburn ◽  
Matthew Bair ◽  
Areeba Kara ◽  
Christopher A. Harle

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Research overview: Providing patient-centered care is increasingly a top priority in the U.S. healthcare system.1,2 Hospitals are required to publicly report patient-centered assessments, including results from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient satisfaction surveys.3 Furthermore, clinician and hospital reimbursements are partially determined by performance on patient satisfaction measures.3 Consequently, hospitals and clinicians may be incentivized to improve patient satisfaction scores over other important outcomes.4 Paradoxically then, the pursuit of patient-centered care may lead clinicians to fulfill patient requests for unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.5 Opioid prescribing during hospitalizations may be particularly affected by clinicians’ seeking to optimize patient satisfaction scores.6,7 Satisfaction with pain care is an important predictor of overall patient satisfaction in the HCAHPS surveys,8,9 and clinicians report increased pressure to fulfill patient requests for immediate pain-relief.10,11 Therefore, clinicians may prescribe opioids to avoid receiving lower patient satisfaction scores.12,13 Furthermore, clinicians lack clear guidance on opioid prescribing for some populations, including non-surgical inpatients, who represent almost half of all hospitalizations.14 To reduce clinicians’ incentive to prescribe opioids as a means of achieving patient satisfaction, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) temporarily removed questions related to patient satisfaction with pain care from the clinician and hospital reimbursement formulas beginning in 2018.15 Importantly, prior research16-20 has not rigorously tested the hypothesis implied by the CMS policy change: that certain opioid prescribing practices in inpatient pain care are associated with higher patient satisfaction. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the receipt/dose of opioids during non-surgical hospitalizations and patient satisfaction measured by the HCAHPS survey. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods/Study Population: We conducted a pooled cross-sectional study of adults (18 and older) with non-surgical hospitalizations within the 11-hospital healthcare system in a Midwestern state from 2011-2016. Data were extracted from electronic health records and linked to HCAHPS patient satisfaction surveys. We estimated the propensity score for receipt of any opioids during hospitalization and separately the receipt of high dose opioids (≥100 morphine milligram equivalent [MME]) based on patient, encounter, and facility characteristics for all hospitalizations with complete data. We used nearest neighbor matching to construct two matched samples to minimize selection bias and confounding by indication. We used a standardized difference threshold of < 0.1 as an indication of the balance between matched groups. Outcomes were compared with a test on the equality of proportions using large-sample statistics. All analysis was performed in STATA 14.0 analytical software. Main outcomes: We analyzed four dependent variables. Two pain-specific patient satisfaction variables were derived from the responses to the following survey questions: 1) “During this hospital stay, how often your pain was well controlled? (pain control)” and 2) “During this hospital stay, how often did the hospital staff do everything they could to help you with your pain? (pain help)”, with 4-point Likert scale responses ranging from “Never” to “Always.” We also used two global satisfaction measures derived from the responses to the following survey questions: 1) “Using any number from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst hospital possible and 10 is the best hospital possible, what number would you use to rate this hospital during your stay (overall patient satisfaction)?” and 2) “Would you recommend this hospital to your friends and family (willingness to recommend a hospital)? (4-point scale of “Definitely Yes” to “Definitely No”). Because the responses are not normally distributed, and the response options are truncated, we dichotomized each of these questions following previously published approaches8 and CMS methodology3 (e.g. “always” vs. all other responses or “9 or 10 rating” vs. all others). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Results: Among 17,691 patients who reported that they needed pain medications during hospitalization in their HCAHPS survey, 43.7% (n=7,735) received opioids. Among the matched sample (n=8,848), 55% were female, 90% were white, 9% were black, 74% were emergency admissions, 29% had a circulatory diagnosis, 92% were discharged home, and the average pain score ranged from 0.2 to 7.1 during the hospital stay. Compared to matched patients hospitalized but did not receiving opioids, those who received opioids did not significantly differ in their rating of pain help (75% of patients without opioids rated that they always received help for their pain versus 75% of patients with opioids; p=.78), pain control (55% of patients without opioids reported that their pain was well controlled versus 54% on opioids; p=.93), willingness to recommend the hospital (69% of patients without opioids reported that they would definitely recommend a hospital versus 71% with opioids; p=.16) and overall rating of their care (47% of patients without opioids rated their hospitalization as 10 versus 46% on opioids; p=.22). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Discussion: We found no evidence that receipt of opioids is associated with patient satisfaction, including at doses. To our knowledge, this is the first study that used propensity score matching to examine the association between inpatient opioid prescribing practices and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, our sample is unique in the inclusion of patients hospitalized for non-surgical indicators over a five year period in the multi-hospital healthcare system in a Midwestern state. Our findings add to the existing literature which has shown contradictory associations between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction.16-22 Specifically, few studies that looked at surgical inpatients showed a lack of association between patient satisfaction16,18 and opioid prescribing, whereas others showed that receipt of opioids was associated with lower patient satisfaction.17-20 Our findings may imply that satisfaction with pain care may be achieved without administering opioids to non-surgical inpatients. Alternatively, satisfaction with pain care may not be influenced by opioid prescribing for non-surgical inpatients. Future research should further examine the association between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction among non-surgical inpatients on a national scale to get a better understanding of the relationship between certain pain care practices and patient satisfaction.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 1352-1355
Author(s):  
Marianna V. Mapes ◽  
Peter A. DePergola ◽  
William T. McGee

Decision-making for the hospitalized dying and critically ill is often characterized by an understanding of autonomy that leads to clinical care and outcomes that are antithetical to patients’ preferences around suffering and quality of life. A better understanding of autonomy will facilitate the ultimate goal of a patient-centered approach and ensure compassionate, high-quality care that respects our patients’ values. We reviewed the medical literature and our experiences through the ethics service, palliative care service, and critical care service of a large community teaching hospital. The cumulative experience of a senior intensivist was filtered through the lens of a medical ethicist and the palliative care team. The practical application of patient-centered care was discerned from these interactions. We determined that a clearer understanding of patient-centeredness would improve the experience and outcomes of care for our patients as well as our adherence to ethical practice. The practical applications of autonomy and patient-centered care were evaluated by the authors through clinical interactions on the wards to ascertain problems in understanding their meaning. Clarification of autonomy and patient-centeredness is provided using specific examples to enhance understanding and application of these principles in patient-centered care.


Pharmacy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Brian Isetts ◽  
Anthony Olson ◽  
Jon Schommer

Team-based, Patient-Centered Care is essential to chronic disease prevention and management but there are differing ideas about the concept’s meaning across healthcare populations, settings and professions. This commentary’s objective is to empirically evaluate the theoretical relationships of the [a] Medication Experience, [b] Patient-Centeredness and other relevant component concepts from pharmaceutical care (i.e., [c] Therapeutic Relationship, [d] Patient-specific preferences for achieving goals of therapy and resolving drug therapy problems) so as to provide practice-based insights. This is achieved using a secondary analysis of 213 excerpts generated from in-depth semi-structured interviews with a national sample of pharmacists and patients about Patient-Centeredness in pharmacist practice. The four component concepts (i.e., a–d) related to the objective were examined and interpreted using a novel 3-archetype heuristic (i.e., Partner, Client and Customer) revealing common practice-based themes related to care preferences and expectations in collaborative goal setting, enduring relationships, value co-creation and evolving patient expectations during challenging medical circumstances. Most practice-based insights were generated within the Partner archetype, likely reflecting high congruence with pharmacist and patient responses related to the Medication Experience and Therapeutic Relationship. The practice-based insights may be especially useful for new practitioners and students accelerating their advancement in providing effective and efficient Patient-Centered Care.


Author(s):  
Julie Zook ◽  
Timothy J. Spence ◽  
Teri Joy

Purpose: This descriptive case study of ambulatory care center typologies builds a layout-based approach to patient-centered care and care team work using theory and methods from space syntax and a recently developed approach to floorplan analysis focused on visibility. Background: Calibrating support for care team work and patient centeredness is a persistent dilemma in ambulatory care settings. Method: A review of literature and floorplan layout analysis are used. Results: The center-stage layout more strongly integrates staff and patients, while the onstage–offstage layout provides greater privacy to the care team. The integration values for exam rooms in each layout were roughly equivalent. Analysis of variations on each floor plan demonstrates ways relatively small variations can modulate visibility conditions without altering integration patterns. Conclusion: Decoupling design of immediate visual properties and relational layout properties can act as a strategy to address competing demands.


JAMA ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 308 (2) ◽  
pp. 139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel M. Kupfer ◽  
Edward U. Bond

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Kanat ◽  
Jonas Schaefer ◽  
Laura Kivelitz ◽  
Jörg Dirmaier ◽  
Sebastian Voigt-Radloff ◽  
...  

Abstract Background  Patient-centeredness (PC) aims to adapt health care to the individual needs and preferences of patients. An existing integrative model of PC comprises several dimensions of PC which have not yet been investigated from the patients’ perspective. Older patients with multimorbidity represent a target group for patient-centered care, as their care needs are particularly complex and should be addressed individually. We aimed to assess the perspective that older patients with multimorbidity have of patient-centered care and to examine the transferability of the integrative model of PC to this specific population. Method We performed 4 guided focus group interviews with a total of 20 older individuals with multimorbidity. The focus group interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Patients’ statements were content-analyzed applying an a priori designed system of categories that included the dimensions of PC from the integrative model and the additional category ‘prognosis and life expectancy’, which had emerged from an initial literature search on aspects of PC specific to the multimorbid elderly. Results The new category ‘prognosis and life expectancy’ was confirmed and expanded to ‘individual care needs related to aging and chronic disesase’. All dimensions of our integrative PC model were confirmed for older patients with multimorbidity. Among these, we found that eight dimensions (individual care needs related to aging and chronic disease, biopsychosocial perspective, clinician-patient communication, essential characteristics of the clinician, clinician-patient-relationship, involvement of family and friends, coordination and continuity of care, access to care) were complemented by aspects specific to this target population. Conclusions The integrative PC model is applicable to the population of older patients with multimorbidity. For a population-specific adaptation, it might be complemented by the dimension ‘individual care needs in aging and chronic disease’, in conjunction with age-specific aspects within existing dimensions. Together with corresponding results from a Delphi survey, our adapted PC model will serve as the basis for a subsequent systematic review of instruments measuring PC in older patients with multimorbidity. Trial registration PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; CRD42018084057; 2018/02/01), German Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de; DRKS00013309; 2018/01/23).


Author(s):  
Janet K. Shim ◽  
Jamie Suki Chang ◽  
Leslie A. Dubbin

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act promulgated a number of fundamental changes to the United States health-care system. Less visible and controversial aspects included the creation of institutions and strategies to reduce health disparities and enhance the quality and patient-centeredness of health care. In this chapter, we offer the concept of cultural health capital (CHC) as a sociological intervention for analyzing these changes aimed at making health care more patient-centered, particularly for historically underserved populations. In particular, we use the notion of CHC to illustrate how patient-centered care is accomplished or undone through complex interpersonal and interactional work that is highly dependent on access to stratified cultural resources that both patients and providers bring to health-care interactions. In so doing, we aim to contest that racism in health care is the primary source of health inequalities. Instead we argue that patients’ and providers’ cultural assets and interactional styles—themselves the product of complex social, cultural, historical, political, and economic contexts—influence their abilities to communicate with and understand one another.


2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 316-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra M. Wolf ◽  
Lisa Lehman ◽  
Robert Quinlin ◽  
Thomas Zullo ◽  
Leslie Hoffman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document