BACKGROUND: Clinical video telehealth (CVT) offers the opportunity to improve access to healthcare providers in medically underserved areas. However, because CVT encounters are mediated through technology, they may result in unintended consequences related to the patientprovider interaction. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus enrolled in Veteran Affairs Health Care and at least one previous telehealth visit experience were interviewed regarding their perspectives on facilitators and barriers to communication with their provider during their CVT visit. The semi-structured telephone interviews were approximately 30 min and were audio-recorded and transcribed. We conducted a thematic content analysis of the interview transcripts. Codes from the transcripts were grouped into thematic categories using the constant comparison method and each theme is represented with illustrative quotes. RESULTS: We identified several themes related to patients' perspectives on CVT. In general, patients expressed satisfaction with CVT visits including better access to appointments, shorter travel time, and less time in the waiting room. Yet, patients also identified several challenges and concerns about CVT visits compared with in-person visits, including concerns about errors in their care because of perceived difficulty completing the physical exam, perceptions that providers paid less attention to them, barriers to speaking up and asking questions, and difficulty establishing a provider-patient relationship. Patients reported feeling less involved during the visit, difficulty finding opportunities to speak, and feeling rushed by the provider. CONCLUSIONS: Patients believed that CVT can improve their access to care, but could hinder communication with their provider, and some were concerned about the completeness and accuracy of the physical exam.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore perceptions of the impact of erectile dysfunction on men who had undergone definitive treatment for early nonmetastatic prostate cancer. DESIGN: Seven focus groups of men with early prostate cancer. The groups were semistructured to explore men's experiences and quality-of-life concerns associated with prostate cancer and its treatment. SETTING: A staff model health maintenance organization, and a Veterans Affairs medical center. PATIENTS: Forty-eight men who had been treated for early prostate cancer 12 to 24 months previously. RESULTS: Men confirmed the substantial effect of sexual dysfunction on the quality of their lives. Four domains of quality of life related to men's sexuality were identified: 1) the qualities of sexual intimacy; 2) everyday interactions with women; 3) sexual imagining and fantasy life; and 4) men's perceptions of their masculinity. Erectile problems were found to affect men in both their intimate and nonintimate lives, including how they saw themselves as sexual beings. CONCLUSIONS: Erectile dysfunction, the most common side effect of treatment for early prostate cancer, has far-reaching effects upon men's lives. Assessment of quality of life related to sexual dysfunction should address these broad impacts of erectile function on men's lives. Physicians should consider these effects when advising men regarding treatment options. Physicians caring for patients who have undergone treatment should address these psychosocial issues when counseling men with erectile dysfunction. KEY WORDS: prostate cancer; erectile dysfunction; quality of life; qualitative methods. J GEN INTERN MED 2001;16:649±655.

The lack of change in global measures of health status after treatment for early prostate cancer obscures important influences in men's lives; cancer diagnosis and treatment complications may result in complex outcomes. Aggressive treatment may confer confidence in cancer control, yet be countered by diminished intimate relationships and masculinity, which accompany sexual dysfunction.

BackgroundHealthcare organizations increasingly are focused on providing care which is patient-centered rather than disease-focused. Yet little is known about how best to transform the culture of care in these organizations. We sought to understand key organizational factors for implementing patient-centered care cultural transformation through an examination of efforts in the US Department of Veterans Affairs.MethodsWe conducted multi-day site visits at four US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers designated as leaders in providing patient-centered care. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 108 employees (22 senior leaders, 42 middle managers, 37 front-line providers and 7 staff). Transcripts of audio recordings were analyzed using a priori codes based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used constant comparison analysis to synthesize codes into meaningful domains.ResultsSites described actions taken to foster patient-centered care in seven domains: 1) leadership; 2) patient and family engagement; 3) staff engagement; 4) focus on innovations; 5) alignment of staff roles and priorities; 6) organizational structures and processes; 7) environment of care. Within each domain, we identified multi-faceted strategies for implementing change. These included efforts by all levels of organizational leaders who modeled patient-centered care in their interactions and fostered willingness to try novel approaches to care amongst staff. Alignment and integration of patient centered care within the organization, particularly surrounding roles, priorities and bureaucratic rules, remained major challenges.ConclusionsTransforming healthcare systems to focus on patient-centered care and better serve the “whole” patient is a complex endeavor. Efforts to transform healthcare culture require robust, multi-pronged efforts at all levels of the organization; leadership is only the beginning. Challenges remain for incorporating patient-centered approaches in the context of competing priorities and regulations. Through actions within each of the domains, organizations may begin to truly transform to patient-driven care.

BackgroundPatient‐centred care is now ubiquitous in health services research, and healthcare systems are moving ahead with patient‐centred care implementation. Yet, little is known about how healthcare employees, charged with implementing patient‐centred care, conceptualize what they are implementing.ObjectiveTo examine how hospital employees conceptualize patient‐centred care.Research DesignWe conducted qualitative interviews about patient‐centred care during site four visits, from January to April 2013.SubjectsWe interviewed 107 employees, including leadership, middle managers, front line providers and staff at four US Veteran Health Administration (VHA) medical centres leading VHA's patient‐centred care transformation.MeasuresData were analysed using grounded thematic analysis. Findings were then mapped to established patient‐centred care constructs identified in the literature: taking a biopsychosocial perspective; viewing the patient‐as‐person; sharing power and responsibility; establishing a therapeutic alliance; and viewing the doctor‐as‐person.ResultsWe identified three distinct conceptualizations: (i) those that were well aligned with established patient‐centred care constructs surrounding the clinical encounter; (ii) others that extended conceptualizations of patient‐centred care into the organizational culture, encompassing the entire patient‐experience; and (iii) still others that were poorly aligned with patient‐centred care constructs, reflecting more traditional patient care practices.ConclusionsPatient‐centred care ideals have permeated into healthcare systems. Additionally, patient‐centred care has been expanded to encompass a cultural shift in care delivery, beginning with patients' experiences entering a facility. However, some healthcare employees, namely leadership, see patient‐centred care so broadly, it encompasses on‐going hospital initiatives, while others consider patient‐centred care as inherent to specific positions. These latter conceptualizations risk undermining patient‐centred care implementation by limiting transformational initiatives to specific providers or simply repackaging existing programmes.

The scales provide definition and metrics for patient-centered research in this area. They complement measures of physical dysfunction and bring into resolution outcomes of treatment that have gone unnoticed in previous studies.

No abstract