Open AccessReconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making
Author(s) -
McKenzie Emily,
Potestio Melissa L.,
Boyd Jamie M.,
Niven Daniel J.,
BrundinMather Rebecca,
Bagshaw Sean M.,
Stelfox Henry T.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.12576
Subject(s) - stakeholder , critically ill , delphi method , medicine , nursing , negotiation , quality (philosophy) , qualitative research , champion , quality management , public relations , business , computer science , intensive care medicine , political science , social science , philosophy , epistemology , marketing , artificial intelligence , sociology , law , service (business)
Background Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations. Objective To describe the decision‐making process for establishing consensus used by a diverse panel of stakeholders to reconcile two sets of quality improvement priorities (provider/decision maker priorities n=9; patient/family priorities n=19) into a single prioritized list. Design We employed a modified Delphi process with a diverse group of panellists to reconcile priorities for improving care of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit ( ICU ). Proceedings were audio‐recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis to explore the decision‐making process for establishing consensus. Setting and participants Nine panellists including three providers, three decision makers and three family members of previously critically ill patients. Results Panellists rated and revised 28 priorities over three rounds of review and reached consensus on the “Top 5” priorities for quality improvement: transition of patient care from ICU to hospital ward; family presence and effective communication; delirium screening and management; early mobilization; and transition of patient care between ICU providers. Four themes were identified as important for establishing consensus: storytelling (sharing personal experiences), amalgamating priorities (negotiating priority scope), considering evaluation criteria and having a priority champion . Conclusions Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating families of patients into a multistakeholder prioritization exercise. The approach described can be used to guide consensus building and reconcile priorities of diverse stakeholder groups.