Perceptions of people with respiratory problems on physician performance evaluation-A qualitative study.
empowerment
feedback
lifelong learning
patient and public involvement
patient perspective
performance evaluation
power dynamics
recertification
revalidation
voice
Journal
Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
ISSN: 1369-7625
Titre abrégé: Health Expect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
28
03
2019
revised:
17
10
2019
accepted:
18
10
2019
pubmed:
21
11
2019
medline:
23
4
2021
entrez:
21
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite increasing calls for patient and public involvement in health-care quality improvement, the question of how patient evaluations can contribute to physician learning and performance assessment has received scant attention. The objective of this study was to explore, amid calls for patient involvement in quality assurance, patients' perspectives on their role in the evaluation of physician performance and to support physicians' learning and decision making on professional competence. A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews. The study took place in a secondary care setting in the Netherlands. The authors selected 25 patients from two Dutch hospitals and through the Dutch Lung Foundation, using purposive sampling. Data were analysed according to the principles of template analysis, based on an a priori coding framework developed from the literature about patient empowerment, feedback and performance assessment. The analysis unearthed three predominant patient perspectives: the proactive perspective, the restrained perspective and the outsider perspective. These perspectives differed in terms of perceived power dynamics within the doctor-patient relationship, patients' perceived ability, and willingness to provide feedback and evaluate their physician's performance. Patients' perspectives thus affected the role patients envisaged for themselves in evaluating physician performance. Although not all patients are equally suitable or willing to be involved, patients can play a role in evaluating physician performance and continuing training through formative approaches. To involve patients successfully, it is imperative to distinguish between different patient perspectives and empower patients by ensuring a safe environment for feedback.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite increasing calls for patient and public involvement in health-care quality improvement, the question of how patient evaluations can contribute to physician learning and performance assessment has received scant attention.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to explore, amid calls for patient involvement in quality assurance, patients' perspectives on their role in the evaluation of physician performance and to support physicians' learning and decision making on professional competence.
DESIGN
A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
The study took place in a secondary care setting in the Netherlands. The authors selected 25 patients from two Dutch hospitals and through the Dutch Lung Foundation, using purposive sampling.
METHODS
Data were analysed according to the principles of template analysis, based on an a priori coding framework developed from the literature about patient empowerment, feedback and performance assessment.
RESULTS
The analysis unearthed three predominant patient perspectives: the proactive perspective, the restrained perspective and the outsider perspective. These perspectives differed in terms of perceived power dynamics within the doctor-patient relationship, patients' perceived ability, and willingness to provide feedback and evaluate their physician's performance. Patients' perspectives thus affected the role patients envisaged for themselves in evaluating physician performance.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Although not all patients are equally suitable or willing to be involved, patients can play a role in evaluating physician performance and continuing training through formative approaches. To involve patients successfully, it is imperative to distinguish between different patient perspectives and empower patients by ensuring a safe environment for feedback.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31747110
doi: 10.1111/hex.12999
pmc: PMC6978864
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
247-255Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Ochsner J. 2010 Spring;10(1):38-43
pubmed: 21603354
Qual Health Care. 1992 Dec;1(4):247-51
pubmed: 10136873
Cult Med Psychiatry. 2008 Jun;32(2):238-58
pubmed: 18299968
Acad Med. 2015 Jan;90(1):88-93
pubmed: 25229194
Health Expect. 2018 Dec;21(6):1075-1084
pubmed: 30062858
Health Expect. 2020 Feb;23(1):247-255
pubmed: 31747110
Health (London). 2017 Jan;21(1):76-92
pubmed: 27130651
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Nov 21;17(1):749
pubmed: 29157254
BMJ. 2018 Apr 10;361:k1463
pubmed: 29636343
Acad Med. 2015 Aug;90(8):1093-9
pubmed: 25993283
Med Educ. 2007 Dec;41(12):1121-3
pubmed: 18045364
Med Care. 2000 Mar;38(3):300-10
pubmed: 10718355
Med Care. 1981 Aug;19(8):829-42
pubmed: 7278418
JAMA. 2004 Sep 1;292(9):1038-43
pubmed: 15339894
Med Educ. 2016 Jan;50(1):79-92
pubmed: 26695468
BMJ. 2001 Oct 20;323(7318):908-11
pubmed: 11668137
Fam Pract. 2007 Apr;24(2):117-27
pubmed: 17264071
Health Expect. 2019 Jun;22(3):317-326
pubmed: 31016863
BMJ. 2013 May 14;346:f2614
pubmed: 23674136
Qual Saf Health Care. 2009 Feb;18 Suppl 1:i44-50
pubmed: 19188461
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Aug;25(8):626-32
pubmed: 26993640
Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Apr;16(2):140-2
pubmed: 17403763
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Apr 11;14:76
pubmed: 24725268
BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 17;8(4):e019963
pubmed: 29666131
Br J Gen Pract. 2011 Oct;61(591):e638-44
pubmed: 22152843
Acad Med. 2018 Dec;93(12):1872-1881
pubmed: 29952770
Health Expect. 2019 Apr;22(2):149-161
pubmed: 30548359
BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:h530
pubmed: 25670197
J Health Psychol. 2014 Jan;19(1):149-58
pubmed: 24058120
Br J Gen Pract. 2012 May;62(598):e314-21
pubmed: 22546590
Acad Med. 2018 Jun;93(6):869-873
pubmed: 29068822
BMJ. 2017 Aug 2;358:j3453
pubmed: 28768629
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Qual Health Res. 2017 Mar;27(4):591-608
pubmed: 27670770
Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Mar;63(608):e200-8
pubmed: 23561787
J Health Organ Manag. 2015;29(5):546-55
pubmed: 26222875
Med Educ. 2012 Feb;46(2):201-15
pubmed: 22239334
BMJ. 2016 Sep 14;354:i3883
pubmed: 27628427
Acad Med. 2014 Mar;89(3):511-6
pubmed: 24448051
Health Expect. 2009 Sep;12(3):275-87
pubmed: 19754691
Health Care Anal. 2001;9(4):449-62
pubmed: 11874258
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Jul 31;18(1):173
pubmed: 30064413
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 23;8(3):e020452
pubmed: 29572398
BMJ. 2005 Jun 25;330(7506):1504-6
pubmed: 15976427
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Jun;17(3):187-93
pubmed: 18519625
Clin Med (Lond). 2008 Aug;8(4):371-6
pubmed: 18724601
Qual Health Res. 2006 Nov;16(9):1236-51
pubmed: 17038755
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 Mar;18(1):141-56
pubmed: 22167577
Health Expect. 2013 Sep;16(3):e36-47
pubmed: 23374430
J Bioeth Inq. 2015 Jun;12(2):189-202
pubmed: 25124984
Med Teach. 2010;32(2):141-7
pubmed: 20163230