Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36127114›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Consensus on how to optimise patient/family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: a Delphi survey.

Natalie N Anderson, G Ross Baker, Lesley Moody, Kerseri Scane, Robin Urquhart, Walter P Wodchis, Anna R Gagliardi

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Natalie N AndersonToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
G Ross BakerInstitute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lesley MoodyPrincess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kerseri ScanePatient Partnerships, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Robin UrquhartDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8864-5716
Walter P WodchisInstitute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2494-7031
Anna R GagliardiToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada anna.gagliardi@uhnresearch.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-5721-809X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatient and family engagement (PE) in health service planning and improvement is widely advocated, yet little prior research offered guidance on how to optimise PE, particularly in hospitals. This study aimed to engage stakeholders in generating evidence-informed consensus on recommendations to optimise PE.

designWe transformed PE processes and resources from prior research into recommendations that populated an online Delphi survey. SETTING AND

participantsPanellists included 58 persons with PE experience including: 22 patient/family advisors and 36 others (PE managers, clinicians, executives and researchers) in round 1 (100%) and 55 in round 2 (95%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratings of importance on a seven-point Likert scale of 48 strategies organised in domains: engagement approaches, strategies to integrate diverse perspectives, facilitators, strategies to champion engagement and hospital capacity for engagement.

resultsOf 50 recommendations, 80% or more of panellists prioritised 32 recommendations (27 in round 1, 5 in round 2) across 5 domains: 5 engagement approaches, 4 strategies to identify and integrate diverse patient/family advisor perspectives, 9 strategies to enable meaningful engagement, 9 strategies by which hospitals can champion PE and 5 elements of hospital capacity considered essential for supporting PE. There was high congruence in rating between patient/family advisors and healthcare professionals for all but six recommendations that were highly rated by patient/family advisors but not by others: capturing diverse perspectives, including a critical volume of advisors on committees/teams, prospectively monitoring PE, advocating for government funding of PE, including PE in healthcare worker job descriptions and sharing PE strategies across hospitals.

conclusionsDecision-makers (eg, health system policy-makers, hospitals executives and managers) can use these recommendations as a framework by which to plan and operationalise PE, or evaluate and improve PE in their own settings. Ongoing research is needed to monitor the uptake and impact of these recommendations on PE policy and practice.

Indexed as

Hospital PlanningDelphi TechniqueHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansPatient ParticipationChange managementOrganisational developmentQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36127114
PMCPMC9490572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.