Premium
Important components of a programme for children with medical complexity: An Australian perspective
Author(s) -
D'Aprano Anita,
Gibb Susie,
Riess Suzi,
Cooper Monica,
Mountford Nicki,
Meehan Elaine
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
child: care, health and development
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.832
H-Index - 82
eISSN - 1365-2214
pISSN - 0305-1862
DOI - 10.1111/cch.12721
Subject(s) - phone , perspective (graphical) , nursing , quality (philosophy) , psychology , perception , service (business) , health care , family centered care , value (mathematics) , family medicine , medicine , medical education , computer science , business , philosophy , linguistics , epistemology , artificial intelligence , neuroscience , economics , economic growth , marketing , machine learning
Background Children with medical complexity (CMC) have high care needs, often unmet by traditional healthcare models. In response to this need, the Complex Care Service (CCS) at The Royal Children's Hospital (RCH), Melbourne was created. Although preliminary parent satisfaction data were available, we lacked knowledge of how the various components of the expanded service were valued and contributed to overall caregiver satisfaction. Aim The aims of this study were to (a) determine what caregivers value most about the CCS and (b) explore caregiver perceptions of care. Methods All caregivers of children enrolled in the RCH CCS in April 2017 were invited to participate. A purposefully designed survey explored caregiver perceptions of care, including patient quality of care; the extent to which the CCS components added value and satisfaction; and frequency of contact. Participants were also invited to answer open‐ended questions and provide general comments. Results Responses were received from 53 families (51%). We found that 24‐hr phone advice, coordination of appointments, a key contact, and access to timely information were the most important components of the service. More than 90% of caregivers indicated that they were satisfied with care and that the CCS improved their child's quality of care. Coordination, communication, family‐centred care, quality care, and access were emergent themes within comments. Conclusion This study provides important information regarding the design and operation of services for CMC throughout Australia and further afield. Our findings highlight the importance of the key contact and family‐centred care. This has implications for practice, as maintaining service quality, as the CCS expands and is implemented more widely, is a major sustainability challenge. It is crucial that we have a detailed understanding of what elements are required to support effective care coordination, to achieve successful implementation on a larger scale.