BackgroundThe need for services to support patient self-care and patient education has been emphasized for patients with chronic conditions. People with chronic conditions may spend many hours per year in health and social care services, but the majority of time is spent in self-care. This has implications in how health care is best organized. The term co-care specifically stresses the combination of health care professionals’ and patients’ resources, supported by appropriate (digital) tools for information exchange, to achieve the best possible health outcomes for patients. Developers of electronic health (eHealth) services need to consider both parties’ specific needs for the service to be successful. Research on participants’ experiences of participating in co-design sessions is scarce.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe different stakeholders’ (people with chronic conditions, health care professionals, and facilitators) overall experiences of participating in co-design workshops aimed at designing an eHealth service for co-care for Parkinson disease, with a particular focus on the perceptions of values and challenges of co-design as well as improvement suggestions.MethodsWe conducted 4 half-day co-design workshops with 7 people with Parkinson disease and 9 health care professionals. Data were collected during the workshop series using formative evaluations with participants and facilitators after each workshop, researchers’ diary notes throughout the co-design process, and a Web-based questionnaire after the final workshop. Quantitative data from the questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were triangulated and analyzed inductively using qualitative content analysis.ResultsQuantitative ratings showed that most participants had a positive general experience of the co-design workshops. Qualitative analysis resulted in 6 categories and 30 subcategories describing respondents’ perceptions of the values and challenges of co-design and their improvement suggestions. The categories concerned (1) desire for more stakeholder variation; (2) imbalance in the collaboration between stakeholders; (3) time investment and commitment paradox; (4) desire for both flexibility and guidance; (5) relevant workshop content, but concerns about goal achievement; and (6) hopes and doubts about future care.ConclusionsBased on the identified values and challenges, some paradoxical experiences were revealed, including (1) a desire to involve more stakeholders in co-design, while preferring to work in separate groups; (2) a desire for more preparation and discussions, while the required time investment was a concern; and (3) the experience that co-design is valuable for improving care, while there are doubts about the realization of co-care in practice. The value of co-design is not mainly about creating new services; it is about improving current practices to shape better care. The choice of methods needs to be adjusted to the stakeholder group and context, which will influence how they exper...

A longitudinal perspective revealed how a clinical quality register was developed and how new technologies not imagined in the early 1990s continue to increase the ultility and value of the clinical database. This historical perspective provided limited evidence of impact, but does provide lessons for current strategies for innovation for quality in health care and of the need to consider innovolution processes, rather than discrete innovations, given the rapid pace of change in new technologies. More evidence is needed of the impact of such registers, and of enhancements, on providers and patients and on costs.

No abstract

ObjectiveTeamwork has been suggested as a promising approach to improving care processes in emergency departments (ED). However, for teamwork to yield expected results, implementation must involve behavior changes. The aim of this study is to use behavior analysis to qualitatively examine how teamwork plays out in practice and to understand eventual discrepancies between planned and actual behaviors.MethodsThe study was set in a Swedish university hospital ED during the initial phase of implementation of teamwork. The intervention focused on changing the environment and redesigning the work process to enable teamwork. Each team was responsible for entire care episodes, i.e. from patient arrival to discharge from the ED. Data was collected through 3 days of observations structured around an observation scheme. Behavior analysis was used to pinpoint key teamwork behaviors for consistent implementation of teamwork and to analyze the contingencies that decreased or increased the likelihood of these behaviors.ResultsWe found a great discrepancy between the planned and the observed teamwork processes. 60% of the 44 team patients observed were handled solely by the appointed team members. Only 36% of the observed patient care processes started according to the description in the planned teamwork process, that is, with taking patient history together. Beside this behavior, meeting in a defined team room and communicating with team members were shown to be essential for the consistent implementation of teamwork. Factors that decreased the likelihood of these key behaviors included waiting for other team members or having trouble locating each other. Getting work done without delay and having an overview of the patient care process increased team behaviors. Moreover, explicit instructions on when team members should interact and communicate increased adherence to the planned process.ConclusionsThis study illustrates how behavior analysis can be used to understand discrepancies between planned and observed behaviors. By examining the contextual conditions that may influence behaviors, improvements in implementation strategies can be suggested. Thereby, the adherence to a planned intervention can be improved, and/or revisions of the intervention be suggested.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can show how patients perceive their illness burden over time. Active use of PROs by clinicians at the point of service can help illuminate the patients' longitudinal changes in outcomes, thereby advancing shared decision making, patient engagement, and self-care. This article offers principles and lessons learned from using PROs and provides 3 case studies to demonstrate how to overcome the challenges in using PROs in routine clinical practice to improve outcomes. These cases demonstrate that it is possible to embed patient-generated data into the flow of care and to track outcomes for improvement and research.

Effective self-management is key to living well with Parkinson's disease and one important aspect is diseasespecific knowledge. This article explores how people with Parkinson's disease in Sweden (1) acquire diseasespecific knowledge and (2) use Parkinson's disease-related healthcare. Data were collected through an online survey, which had 346 respondents (16-87 years old, median age: 68 years, 51% male; time since diagnosis: 0-31 years, median time: 7 years). Our results show that disease-specific knowledge is mainly found online, especially for women with Parkinson's disease and people with Parkinson's disease of working age, that most people with Parkinson's disease in Sweden see their neurologist for 1 h or less per year and only one in two people with Parkinson's disease has regular contact with other Parkinson's disease-related healthcare professionals. We also find that people with Parkinson's disease reporting higher levels of specific knowledge also are more likely to be satisfied with the amount of time they get with their neurologist, regardless of the amount of time.

Simulation modeling is a way to test changes in a computerized environment to give ideas for improvements before implementation. This article reviews research literature on simulation modeling as support for health care decision making. The aim is to investigate the experience and potential value of such decision support and quality of articles retrieved. A literature search was conducted, and the selection criteria yielded 59 articles derived from diverse applications and methods. Most met the stated research-quality criteria. This review identified how simulation can facilitate decision making and that it may induce learning. Furthermore, simulation offers immediate feedback about proposed changes, allows analysis of scenarios, and promotes communication on building a shared system view and understanding of how a complex system works. However, only 14 of the 59 articles reported on implementation experiences, including how decision making was supported. On the basis of these articles, we proposed steps essential for the success of simulation projects, not just in the computer, but also in clinical reality. We also presented a novel concept combining simulation modeling with the established plan-do-study-act cycle for improvement. Future scientific inquiries concerning implementation, impact, and the value for health care management are needed to realize the full potential of simulation modeling.

Background:Value-based health care is increasingly used for developing health care services by relating patient outcomes to costs. A hierarchical value scorecard for creating outcome measurements has been suggested: the 3-tier model. The objective of this study was to test the model against the patient's view of value in a chronic care setting.Methods:Semistructured interviews with 22 persons with rheumatoid arthritis were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Themes were extracted, and the model was critically applied and revised.Results:The study validates existing dimensions in the model but suggests adding information, social health, predictability, and continuity to make it more useful and representative of patients' preferences.Conclusion:Although the model aims to focus on outcomes relevant to patients, it lacks dimensions important to individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. The data illustrate difficulties in finding patients' preferred outcomes and imply tactics for arriving at meaningful measurements.