Purpose: To gain a rich understanding of the experiences and opinions of patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers regarding the design of OGR with structure, process, environment, and outcome components. Methods: Qualitative research based on the constructive grounded theory approach is performed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who received OGR (n=13), two focus groups with healthcare professionals (n=13), and one focus group with policymakers (n=4). The Post-acute Care Rehabilitation quality framework was used as a theoretical background in all research steps. Results: The data analysis of all perspectives resulted in seven themes: the outcome of OGR focuses on the patient’s independence and regaining control over their functioning at home. Essential process elements are a patient-oriented network, a well-coordinated dedicated team at home, and blended eHealth applications. Additionally, closer cooperation in integrated care and refinement regarding financial, time-management, and technological challenges is needed with implementation into a permanent structure. All steps should be influenced by the stimulating aspect of the physical and social rehabilitation environment. Conclusion: The three perspectives generally complement each other to regain patients’ quality of life and autonomy. This study demonstrates an overview of the building blocks that can be used in developing and designing an OGR trajectory.
DOCUMENT
Traditional approaches in healthcare have been challenged giving way to broader forms of users’ participation in treatment. In this article we present the Health 2.0 movement as an example of relational and participatory practices in healthcare. Health 2.0 is an approach in which participation is the major aim, aspiring to reshape the system into more collaborative and less hierarchical relationships. We offer two illustrations in order to discuss how Health 2.0 is related and can contribute to a positive uptake of patient’s knowledge, which implies challenging healthcare practices exclusively focused on scientific expertise. In contrast, the illustrations we discuss focus on relations and cultural practices, searching for responsive and context-sensitive interventions, entertaining multiple views and allowing space for creativity. Finally we introduce two relational resources to contribute with the development and sustainability of Health 2.0 practices: Relational being and edge of fluidity. Those are resources aiming to engage professionals in a type of conversation with their clients, which is different from the hierarchical, linear and fact-oriented approach. This conversation aims at creating a space where the voices of all involved are welcomed, raising different opinions and points of view, bringing up new light and possibilities to the problem being investigated. These resources may be useful for those who are interested in improving quality in healthcare by investing in collaboration, contextual sensitivity and relational engagement.
LINK
Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions demanding primary care services is increasing. To deal with the complex health care demands of these people, professionals from different disciplines collaborate. This study aims to explore influential factors regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development in primary care. Methods: A qualitative study, including four semi-structured focus group interviews (n = 4). In total, a heterogeneous group of experts (n = 16) and health care professionals (n = 15) participated. Participants discussed viewpoints, barriers, and facilitators regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development. The data were analysed by means of inductive content analysis. Results: The findings show a variety of factors influencing the interprofessional collaboration in developing a care plan. Factors can be divided into 5 key categories: (1) patient-related factors: active role, self-management, goals and wishes, membership of the team; (2) professional-related factors: individual competences, domain thinking, motivation; (3) interpersonal factors: language differences, knowing each other, trust and respect, and motivation; (4) organisational factors: structure, composition, time, shared vision, leadership and administrative support; and (5) external factors: education, culture, hierarchy, domain thinking, law and regulations, finance, technology and ICT. Conclusions: Improving interprofessional collaboration regarding care plan development calls for an integral approach including patient- and professional related factors, interpersonal, organisational, and external factors. Further, the leader of the team seems to play a key role in watching the patient perspective, organising and coordinating interprofessional collaborations, and guiding the team through developments. The results of this study can be used as input for developing tools and interventions targeted at executing and improving interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development.
DOCUMENT
