BackgroundCross-cultural communication in primary care is often difficult, leading to unsatisfactory, substandard care. Supportive evidence-based guidelines and training initiatives (G/TIs) exist to enhance cross cultural communication but their use in practice is sporadic. The objective of this paper is to elucidate how migrants and other stakeholders can adapt, introduce and evaluate such G/TIs in daily clinical practice.MethodsWe undertook linked qualitative case studies to implement G/TIs focused on enhancing cross cultural communication in primary care, in five European countries. We combined Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as an analytical framework, with Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) as the research method to engage migrants, primary healthcare providers and other stakeholders. Across all five sites, 66 stakeholders participated in 62 PLA-style focus groups over a 19 month period, and took part in activities to adapt, introduce, and evaluate the G/TIs. Data, including transcripts of group meetings and researchers’ fieldwork reports, were coded and thematically analysed by each team using NPT.ResultsIn all settings, engaging migrants and other stakeholders was challenging but feasible. Stakeholders made significant adaptations to the G/TIs to fit their local context, for example, changing the focus of a G/TI from palliative care to mental health; or altering the target audience from General Practitioners (GPs) to the wider multidisciplinary team. They also progressed plans to deliver them in routine practice, for example liaising with GP practices regarding timing and location of training sessions and to evaluate their impact. All stakeholders reported benefits of the implemented G/TIs in daily practice. Training primary care teams (clinicians and administrators) resulted in a more tolerant attitude and more effective communication, with better focus on migrants’ needs. Implementation of interpreter services was difficult mainly because of financial and other resource constraints. However, when used, migrants were more likely to trust the GP’s diagnoses and GPs reported a clearer understanding of migrants’ symptoms.ConclusionsMigrants, primary care providers and other key stakeholders can work effectively together to adapt and implement G/TIs to improve communication in cross-cultural consultations, and enhance understanding and trust between GPs and migrant patients.

Background People with Down syndrome (PDS) have complex healthcare needs. Little is known about the quality of health care for PDS, let alone how it is appraised by PDS and their caregivers. This study explores the perspectives of PDS, their parents and support staff regarding quality in health care for PDS. Method The present authors conducted semi‐structured interviews with 18 PDS and 15 parents, and focus groups with 35 support staff members (of PDS residing in assisted living facilities) in the Netherlands. Results According to the participants, healthcare quality entails well‐coordinated health care aligned with other support and care systems, a person‐centred and holistic approach, including respect, trust and provider–patient communication adapted to the abilities of PDS. Conclusions Our findings may be used to improve health care for PDS, and provide insight into how health care could match the specific needs of PDS.

There is considerable HIE potential in patients themselves, as well as in their network, although many barriers have to be overcome to profit from this. GP practices are recommended to adjust consultations and communication practices and to facilitate deployment of the patient's network, while still considering patient autonomy.

BackgroundThe medical care chain around Down syndrome (DS) is complex, with many multidisciplinary challenges. The current quality of care is unknown. Outcome-oriented quality indicators have the potential to improve medical practice and evaluate whether innovations are successful. This is particularly interesting for the evolving care for people with DS and intellectual disabilities (ID). The aim of this study was to identify existing indicators for medical DS care, by reviewing the literature.MethodsWe systematically searched six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar) for studies concerning the development and implementation of quality indicators for DS and/or ID care, published until February 1st 2015. The scoping review method was used, including systematic data extraction and stakeholder consultation.ResultsWe identified 13 studies concerning quality indicators for ID care that obtained data originating from questionnaires (patient/family/staff), medical files and/or national databases. We did not find any indicator sets specifically for DS care. Consulted stakeholders did not come up with additional indicator sets. Existing indicators for ID care predominantly focus on support services. Indicators in care for people with ID targeting medical care are scarce. Of the 70 indicators within the 13 indicator sets, 10% are structure indicators, 34% process, 32% outcome and 24% mixed. Ten of the 13 sets include indicators on the WHO quality dimensions ‘patient-centeredness’, ‘effectiveness’ and ‘efficiency’ of care. ‘Accessibility’ is covered by nine sets, ‘equitability’ by six, and ‘safety’ by four. Most studies developed indicators in a multidisciplinary manner in a joint effort with all relevant stakeholders; some used focus groups to include people with ID.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first review that searched for studies on quality indicators in DS care. Hence, the study contributes to existing knowledge on DS care as well as on measuring quality of care. Future research should address the development of a compact set of quality indicators for the DS care chain as a whole. Indicators should preferably be patient-centred and outcome-oriented, including user perspectives, while developed in a multidisciplinary way to achieve successful implementation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2228-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Inadequate HIE should be seen as a chain of events leading to less effective consultations, substandard treatment, and insufficient patient follow-up. The results indicate a mismatch between GPs' expectations about professional carers' competencies, responsibilities, and roles in HIE and the setting in which professional carers operate. Further research should focus on how daily GP practice can be attuned to the practicalities of HIE with patients with ID and their professional carers.

Background: Insight into quality of healthcare for people with Down Syndrome (DS) is limited. Quality indicators (QIs) can provide this insight. This study aims to find consensus among participants regarding QIs for healthcare for people with DS. Methods: We conducted a four-round Delphi study, in which 33 healthcare professionals involved in healthcare for people with DS and two patient organisations' representatives in the Netherlands participated. Median and 75percentiles were used to determine consensus among the answers on 5-point Likert-scales. In each round, participants received an overview of participants' answers from the previous round. Results: Participants agreed (consensus was achieved) that a QI-set should provide insight into available healthcare, enable healthcare improvements, and cover a large diversity of quality domains and healthcare disciplines. However, the number of QIs in the set should be limited in order to prevent registration burden. Participants were concerned that QIs would make quality information about individual healthcare professionals publicly available, which would induce judgement of healthcare professionals and harm quality, instead of improving it. Conclusions: We unravelled the complexity of capturing healthcare for people with DS in a QI-set. Patients' rights to relevant information have to be carefully balanced against providers' entitlement to a safe environment in which they can learn and improve. A QI-set should be tailored to different healthcare disciplines and information systems, and measurement instruments should be suitable for collecting information from people with DS. Results from this study and two preceding studies, will form the basis for the further development of a QI-set.

People with Down syndrome have complex health care needs which are not always fully met. Health care improvements are required to better meet these needs. Quality indicators are an important tool for improving health care.However, quality indicators for health care for people with Down syndrome are scarce. Existing quality indicators focus on medical (physical) needs or the clinical setting, even though it is acknowledged that quality measures should reflect the total of quality aspects relevant to the population at stake, which may encompass aspects beyond the medical domain. These aspects beyond the medical domain are the focus of the current paper, which aims to provide insight into the way people with Down syndrome live their lives, how health care may fit in, and how this may impact the development of quality indicators. The paper is based on data originating from interviews with people with Down syndrome and their parents as well as focus groups with support staff members working in assisted living facilities for people with intellectual disability. The data revealed a lot of variation in how people with Down syndrome live their lives. Nevertheless, we were able to identify 11 topics, which we grouped into three overarching themes: (1) Being different yet living a normal life; (2) Down syndrome-(un)friendly society and services; and (3) family perspective. The variation in our data stresses the importance of health care that takes a person's life into account beyond the medical domain, as exemplified by the identified topics. Our findings also show that a good life is not merely depending on good health care supported by well-defined quality indicators, but on (support in) all life domains.

Background: Insight into quality of healthcare for people with Down Syndrome (DS) is limited. Quality indicators (QIs) can provide this insight. This study aims to find consensus among participants regarding QIs for healthcare for people with DS.Methods: We conducted a four-round Delphi study, in which 33 healthcare professionals involved in healthcare for people with DS and two patient organisations’ representatives in the Netherlands participated. Median and 75-percentiles were used to determine consensus among the answers on 5-point Likert-scales. In each round, participants received an overview of participants’ answers from the previous round.Results: Participants agreed (consensus was achieved) that a QI-set should provide insight into available healthcare, enable healthcare improvements, and cover a large diversity of quality domains and healthcare disciplines. However, the number of QIs in the set should be limited in order to prevent registration burden. Participants were concerned that QIs would make quality information about individual healthcare professionals publicly available, which would induce judgement of healthcare professionals and harm quality, instead of improving it. Conclusions: We unravelled the complexity of capturing healthcare for people with DS in a QI-set. Patients’ rights to relevant information have to be carefully balanced against providers’ entitlement to a safe environment in which they can learn and improve. A QI-set should be tailored to different healthcare disciplines and information systems, and measurement instruments should be suitable for collecting information from people with DS. Results from this study and two preceding studies, will form the basis for the further development of a QI-set.