The concept of a working alliance is rooted in psychotherapy and has been studied extensively in that field. Much less research has been conducted into working alliances between chronic psychiatric patients and their case managers. The aim of this review was to identify what is known about the working alliance between chronic psychiatric patients and their case managers. An extensive survey of the literature produced 14 articles for this review. The results of studies conducted show that a good working alliance has positive effects on the functioning of patients, and that the quality of the alliance depends on both patient characteristics and the behaviour of the case managers. The results also indicate that the working alliance is largely determined in the first 3 months of the contact. Further research into the development of working alliances is necessary.
MULTIFILE
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
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
PurposeThis study investigates patients’ experiences of interaction with their healthcare professionals (HCPs) during cancer treatment and identifies elements that HCPs can utilize to improve cancer care provision.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and Embase were systematically searched for relevant studies published from January 2010 until February 2022. Qualitative studies investigating adult patients’ perspectives on their interaction with HCPs during cancer treatment were included. Studies conducted during the diagnosis or end-of-life treatment phase were excluded. Duplicate removal, screening, and quality appraisal were independently performed by four reviewers using Covidence.org. We performed a thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative data extracted from studies meeting the quality criteria in three stages: excerpts coding, codes categorization, and theme identification by merging similar categories.ResultsEighty-eight studies were included for quality appraisal, of which 50 papers met the quality inclusion criteria. Three themes were identified as essential to positively perceived patient-HCP interaction: “Support, respect and agency”, “Quantity, timing, and clarity of information”, and “Confidence, honesty, and expertise”. Overall, patients experienced positive interaction with HCPs when the approach was person-centered and when HCPs possessed strong interpersonal skills. However, patients expressed negative experiences when their preferences regarding communication and the type of personal support needed were ignored.ConclusionsThis meta-synthesis emphasizes the importance for HCPs to recognize all patients’ needs, including communication and personal support preferences, to provide high-quality care. Consequently, healthcare professionals should continuously train their verbal and non-verbal communication, empathy, active listening, and collaboration skills during their undergraduate and continuing education.
MULTIFILE
Patients with a hematologic malignancy increasingly prefer to be actively involved in treatment decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM), a process that supports decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions, fits well with this need. A decision is preference sensitive when well-informed patients considerably differ in their trade-offs between the pros and cons of one option, or if more equal treatment options are available, including no treatment. SDM involves several steps: the first is choice talk, where the professional informs the patient that a decision needs to be made between the various relevant options and that the patient's opinion is important. The second is option talk, where the professional explains the options and their pros and cons. In the third step, preference talk, the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences. The professional supports the patient in deliberation. The final step is decision talk, where the professional and patient discuss the patient's decisional role preference, make or defer the decision and discuss possible follow-up.
DOCUMENT
Patients with a hematologic malignancy increasingly prefer to be actively involved in treatment decision-making.1,2 Shared decision-making (SDM), a process that supports decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions, fits well with this need. A decision is preference sensitive when well-informed patients considerably differ in their trade-offs between the pros and cons of one option, or if more equal treatment options are available, including no treatment. SDM involves several steps: the first is choice talk, where the professional informs the patient that a decision needs to be made between the various relevant options and that the patient's opinion is important. The second is option talk, where the professional explains the options and their pros and cons. In the third step, preference talk, the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences. The professional supports the patient in deliberation. The final step is decision talk, where the professional and patient discuss the patient's decisional role preference, make or defer the decision and discuss possible follow-up.3,4
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
Across all health care settings, certain patients are perceived as ‘difficult’ by clinicians. This paper’s aim is to understand how certain patients come to be perceived and labelled as ‘difficult’ patients in community mental health care, through mixed-methods research in The Netherlands between June 2006 and October 2009. A literature review, a Delphi-study among experts, a survey study among professionals, a Grounded Theory interview study among ‘difficult’ patients, and three case studies of ‘difficult’ patients were undertaken. Analysis of the results of these qualitative and quantitative studies took place within the concept of the sick role, and resulted in the construction of a tentative explanatory model. The ‘difficult’ patient-label is associated with professional pessimism, passive treatment and possible discharge or referral out of care. The label is given by professionals when certain patient characteristics are present and a specific causal attribution (psychological, social or moral versus neurobiological) about the patient’s behaviours is made. The status of ‘difficult’ patient is easily reinforced by subsequent patient and professional behaviour, turning initial unusual help-seeking behaviour into ‘difficult’ or ineffective chronic illness behaviour, and ineffective professional behaviour. These findings illustrate that the course of mental illness, or at least the course of patients’ contact with mental health professionals and services, is determined by patient and professional and reinforced by the social and mental health care system. This model adds to the broader sick role concept a micro-perspective in which attribution and learning principles are incorporated. On a practical level, it implies that professionals need to look into their own role in the perpetuation of difficult behaviours as described here.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To construct the underlying value structure of shared decision making (SDM) models. Method: We included previously identified SDM models (n = 40) and 15 additional ones. Using a thematic analysis, we coded the data using Schwartz’s value theory to define values in SDM and to investigate value relations. Results: We identified and defined eight values and developed three themes based on their relations: shared control, a safe and supportive environment, and decisions tailored to patients. We constructed a value structure based on the value relations and themes: the interplay of healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and patients’ skills [Achievement], support for a patient [Benevolence], and a good relationship between HCP and patient [Security] all facilitate patients’ autonomy [Self-Direction]. These values enable a more balanced relationship between HCP and patient and tailored decision making [Universalism]. Conclusion: SDM can be realized by an interplay of values. The values Benevolence and Security deserve more explicit attention, and may especially increase vulnerable patients’ Self-Direction. Practice implications: This value structure enables a comparison of values underlying SDM with those of specific populations, facilitating the incorporation of patients’ values into treatment decision making. It may also inform the development of SDM measures, interventions, education programs, and HCPs when practicing.
DOCUMENT
Lifelong learning is necessary for nurses and caregivers to provide good, person-centred care. To facilitate such learning and embed it into regular working processes, learning communities of practice are considered promising. However, there is little insight into how learning networks contribute to learning exactly and what factors of success can be found. The study is part of a ZonMw-funded research project ‘LeerSaam Noord’ in the Netherlands, which aims to strengthen the professionalization of the nursing workforce and promote person-centred care. We describe what learning in learning communities looks like in four different healthcare contexts during the start-up phase of the research project. A thematic analysis of eleven patient case-discussions in these learning communities took place. In addition, quantitative measurements on learning climate, reciprocity behavior, and perceptions of professional attitude and autonomy, were used to underpin findings. Reflective questioning and discussing professional dilemma's i.e. patient cases in which conflicting interests between the patient and the professional emerge, are of importance for successful learning.
MULTIFILE
