Measuring organisational readiness for patient engagement (MORE): an international online Delphi consensus study

BMC Health Services Research

Glyn Elwyn³  Amy Lloyd²  Marie-Anne Durand⁴  Linda JM Oostendorp¹ 

[1] Department of Psychology, Centre for Lifespan and Chronic Illness Research, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK;Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK;The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, USA;The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, HB 7256, Dartmouth College, Hanover 03755, NH, USA

关键词: Delphi consensus procedure;    Scale development;    Ability;    Willingness;    Organisational readiness;    Implementation;    Patient engagement;   

Others  :  1128532
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-015-0717-3

 received in 2014-07-22, accepted in 2015-01-28,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Widespread implementation of patient engagement by organisations and clinical teams is not a reality yet. The aim of this study is to develop a measure of organisational readiness for patient engagement designed to monitor and facilitate a healthcare organisation’s willingness and ability to effectively implement patient engagement in healthcare.

Methods

The development of the MORE (Measuring Organisational Readiness for patient Engagement) scale was guided by Weiner’s theory of organisational readiness for change. Weiner postulates that an organisation’s readiness is determined by both the willingness and ability to implement the change (i.e. in this context: patient engagement). A first version of the scale was developed based on a literature search and evaluation of pre-existing tools. We invited multi-disciplinary stakeholders to participate in a two-round online Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each proposed item, and to comment on the proposed domains and items. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and were asked to re-rate the importance of the revised, new and unchanged items, and to provide comments.

Results

The first version of the scale contained 51 items divided into three domains: (1) Respondents’ characteristics; (2) the organisation’s willingness to implement patient engagement; and (3) the organisation’s ability to implement patient engagement. 131 respondents from 16 countries (health care managers, policy makers, clinicians, patients and patient representatives, researchers, and other stakeholders) completed the first survey, and 72 of them also completed the second survey. During the Delphi process, 34 items were reworded, 8 new items were added, 5 items were removed, and 18 were combined. The scale’s instructions were revised. The final version of MORE totalled 38 items; 5 on stakeholders, 13 on an organisation’s willingness to implement, and 20 on an organisation’s ability to implement patient engagement in healthcare.

Conclusions

The Delphi technique was successfully used to refine the scale’s instructions, domains and items, using input from a broad range of international stakeholders, hoping that MORE can be applied in a variety of healthcare contexts worldwide. Further assessment is needed to determine the psychometric properties of the scale.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Oostendorp et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Dentzer S: Rx for the ‘blockbuster drug’ of patient engagement. Health Aff 2013, 32(2):202. (Millwood)
• [2]Coulter A: Engaging patients in healthcare. Open University Press, Maidenhead; 2011.
• [3]Strategy Unit - NHS England: Planning and delivering service changes for patients. A good practice guide for commissioners on the development of proposals for major service changes and reconfigurations. 2013.
• [4]National Voices. People shaping health and social care [http://www.nationalvoices.org.uk/evidence]
• [5]Coulter A, Edwards A, Elwyn G, Thomson R: Implementing shared decision making in the UK. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011, 105(4):300-4.
• [6]King E, Taylor J, Williams R, Vanson T: The MAGIC programme: evaluation. 2013.
• [7]Elwyn G, Legare F, van der Weijden T, Edwards A, May C: Arduous implementation: does the Normalisation Process Model explain why it’s so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice. Implementation Sci 2008, 3:57. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Ipsos MORI: Patient Feedback Survey. 2012.
• [9]Gallivan J, Kovacs Burns KA, Bellows M, Eigenseher C: The Many Faces of Patient Engagement. J Particip Med 2012, 4:e32.
• [10]Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C, et al.: Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff 2013, 32(2):223-31. (Millwood)
• [11]Gravel K, Légaré F, Graham ID: Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Implementation Sci 2006, 1:16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Légaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, Graham ID: Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 73(3):526-35.
• [13]Johnson A, Bament D: Improving the quality of hospital services: how diverse groups of consumers prefer to be involved. Aust Health Rev 2002, 25(6):194-205.
• [14]Williams I: Organizational readiness for innovation in health care: some lessons from the recent literature. Health Serv Manage Res 2011, 24(4):213-8.
• [15]Troy K. Change management: an overview of current initiatives: Conference Board. New York, NY; 1994.
• [16]Kotter JP: Leading Change. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA; 1996.
• [17]Weiner BJ: A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Sci 2009, 4:67. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Weiner BJ, Amick H, Lee SY: Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: a review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Med Care Res Rev 2008, 65(4):379-436.
• [19]Shea CM, Jacobs SR, Esserman DA, Bruce K, Weiner BJ: Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implementation Sci 2014, 9:7. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H: Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000, 32(4):1008-15.
• [21]Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H: Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J Adv Nurs 2006, 53(2):205-12.
• [22]Institute for Family Centered Care and the American Hospital Association: Strategies for leadership. Patient and family centred care. A hospital self-assessment inventory. 2004.
• [23]Frampton S, Guastello S, Brady C, Hale M, Horowitz S, Smith SB, et al.: Patient-centered care improvement guide. 2008.
• [24]Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Sydney: Patientcentred care: Improving quality and safety through partnerships with patients and consumers. 2011.
• [25]Wynia MK, Johnson M, McCoy TP, Griffin LP, Osborn CY: Validation of an organizational communication climate assessment toolkit. Am J Med Qual 2010, 25(6):436-43.
• [26]Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al.: Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006, 333(7565):417.
• [27]Rao JK, Anderson LA, Sukumar B, Beauchesne DA, Stein T, Frankel RM: Engaging communication experts in a Delphi process to identify patient behaviors that could enhance communication in medical encounters. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:97. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Bristol Online Surveys [http://survey.bris.ac.uk/]
• [29]Barr PJ, Thompson R, Walsh T, Grande SW, Ozanne EM, Elwyn G: The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res 2014, 16(1):e2.
• [30]Elwyn G, Barr PJ, Grande SW, Thompson R, Walsh T, Ozanne EM: Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2013, 93(1):102-7.
• [31]Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M, Cheung WY, et al.: The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect 2005, 8(1):34-42.
• [32]Tomson C, Durand M-A, Cullen R: Shared decision-making in kidney care: the challenge of measurement. British Journal of Renal Medicine 2013, 18(1):23-5.
• [33]Moret L, Nguyen JM, Pillet N, Falissard B, Lombrail P, Gasquet I: Improvement of psychometric properties of a scale measuring inpatient satisfaction with care: a better response rate and a reduction of the ceiling effect. BMC Health Serv Res 2007, 7:197. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Hofstede SN, van Bodegom-Vos L, Wentink MM, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL, Vliet Vlieland TP, Marang-van de Mheen PJ: Most important factors for the implementation of shared decision making in sciatica care: ranking among professionals and patients. PLoS One 2014, 9(4):e94176.
• [35]Hofstede SN, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Wentink MM, Stiggelbout AM, Vleggeert-Lankamp CL, Vliet Vlieland TP, et al.: Barriers and facilitators to implement shared decision making in multidisciplinary sciatica care: a qualitative study. Implementation Sci 2013, 8:95. BioMed Central Full Text