Measuring care alignment in general practice consultations for people with long-term conditions: an exploratory study
Jenny Carryer 1 , R Claire Budge 2 , Helen Francis 31 Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
2 MidCentral DHB, Palmerston North, New Zealand
3 Hastings Health Centre, Hastings, New Zealand
Correspondence to: Professor Jenny Carryer, School of Nursing, MU, PB 11-222, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Email: J.B.Carryer@massey.ac.nz
Journal of Primary Health Care 8(3) 256-262 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC15056
Published: 27 September 2016
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2016.
This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic care Model (CCM) aims to make the care of people with long term conditions (LTC) planned, proactive and patient-centred. The patient assessment of chronic care (PACIC) and our recently developed modified PACIC (MPACIC) allow patient and provider views to be compared.
AIM: To explore the use of measures of care provision and receipt in primary care long-term conditions management and to assess congruity between patient and provider views of support.
METHODS: For this observational self-report study, 13 pairs of matched patient and provider dyads (patient/general practitioner and patient/practice nurse) were recruited from general practice. Patients with long-term conditions were asked to rate the support provided by their general practitioner and practice nurse, separately, using the PACIC instrument, a measure of care processes. The modified version for providers (MPACIC) was similarly administered, with GPs and PNs (herein referred to as practitioners) rating the care specifically provided to the 13 patients. Aggregated scores were compared and a case study example was used.
RESULTS: For 67% of ratings, patients and practitioners agreed (0 or 1 category difference) on the frequency of self-management support provision. Some disagreement was found for 19% of ratings, and considerable disagreement was found for 15%. The strongest agreement was found with Delivery System Design and the least with Goal Setting. Generally, there was little difference between patient/doctor and patient/nurse agreement.
DISCUSSION: Agreement between patients and practitioners regarding the level of self-management support received and provided was relatively high. This study demonstrates ways the PACIC and MPACIC can be used together to measure patient/practitioner agreement about long-term condition care provision.
KEYWORDS: Chronic illness; self-management; primary health care
References
[1] Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract. 1998; 1 2–4.| 1:STN:280:DyaK1M7ks1WitA%3D%3D&md5=a4ce3bce2ec5566b6857d21b05042cc5CAS | 10345255PubMed |
[2] Bonomi AE, Wagner EH, Glasgow RE, et al. Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC): a practical tool to measure quality improvement. Health Serv Res. 2002; 37 791–820.
| Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC): a practical tool to measure quality improvement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12132606PubMed |
[3] Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, et al. Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Med Care. 2005; 43 436–44.
| Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15838407PubMed |
[4] Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. High-quality chronic care delivery improves experiences of chronically ill patients receiving care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013; 25 689–95.
| High-quality chronic care delivery improves experiences of chronically ill patients receiving care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24123243PubMed |
[5] Noël PH, Parchman ML, Palmer RF, et al. Alignment of patient and primary care practice member perspectives of chronic illness care: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2014; 15 57
| Alignment of patient and primary care practice member perspectives of chronic illness care: a cross-sectional analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24678983PubMed |
[6] Carryer J, Budge C, Hansen C, et al. Modifying the PACIC to assess provision of chronic illness care: an exploratory study with primary health care nurses. J Prim Health Care. 2010; 2 118–23.
| 20690301PubMed |
[7] Gugiu PC, Coryn C, Clark R, Kuehn A. Development and evaluation of the short version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument. Chronic Illn. 2009; 5 268–76.
| Development and evaluation of the short version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19933249PubMed |
[8] Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. Factorial validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and PACIC short version (PACIC-S) among cardiovascular disease patients in the Netherlands. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012; 10 104
| Factorial validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and PACIC short version (PACIC-S) among cardiovascular disease patients in the Netherlands.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22937991PubMed |
[9] Fan J, McCoy RG, Ziegenfuss JY, et al. Evaluating the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey from the patient’s perspective. Ann Behav Med. 2015; 49 104–11.
| Evaluating the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey from the patient’s perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25236671PubMed |
[10] Rick J, Rowe K, Hann M, et al. Psychometric properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care measure: acceptability, reliability and validity in United Kingdom patients with long-term conditions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012; 12 293
| Psychometric properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care measure: acceptability, reliability and validity in United Kingdom patients with long-term conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22938193PubMed |
[11] Iglesias K, Burnand B, Peytremann-Bridevaux I. PACIC instrument: disentangling dimensions using published validation models. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014; 26 250–60.
| PACIC instrument: disentangling dimensions using published validation models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2cnjvFKrtw%3D%3D&md5=ca1de5dac164967882dccd2807984187CAS | 24737833PubMed |
[12] Spicer J, Budge C, Carryer J. Taking the PACIC back to basics: the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012; 18 307–12.
| Taking the PACIC back to basics: the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20973876PubMed |
[13] Carryer J, Budge C, Hansen C, et al. Providing and receiving self-management support for chronic illness: patients’ and health practitioners’ assessments. J Prim Health Care. 2010; 2 124–9.
| 20690302PubMed |
[14] Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. The importance of productive patient–professional interaction for the well-being of chronically ill patients. Qual Life Res. 2015; 24 897–903.
| The importance of productive patient–professional interaction for the well-being of chronically ill patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25267102PubMed |
[15] Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. Relational coordination promotes quality of chronic care delivery in Dutch disease-management programs. Health Care Manage Rev. 2012; 37 301–9.
| Relational coordination promotes quality of chronic care delivery in Dutch disease-management programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22138737PubMed |
