Identifying best approaches for engaging patients and family members in health informatics initiatives: a case study of the Group Priority Sort technique.

Group priority sort Health informatics Health information technology Nursing informatics Participatory research Patient engagement

Journal

Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 12 07 2019
accepted: 29 04 2020
entrez: 2 6 2020
pubmed: 2 6 2020
medline: 2 6 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Patient engagement strategies in health service delivery have become more common in recent years. However, many healthcare organizations are challenged in identifying the best methods to engage patients in health information technology (IT) initiatives. Engaging with important stakeholders to identify effective opportunities can inform the development of a resource that addresses this issue and supports organizations in their endeavors. The purpose of this paper is to share our experience and lessons learned from applying a novel consensus-building technique in order to identify key elements for effective patient engagement in health IT initiatives. This will be done through a case study approach. Patients, family members of patients, health professionals, researchers, students, vendor representatives and individuals who work in health IT roles in health organizations were engaged through a one-day symposium in Toronto, Canada in September, 2018. During the symposium, the Group Priority Sort technique was used to obtain structured feedback from symposium attendees in the context of small group discussions. Descriptive statistics and a content analysis were undertaken to analyze the data collected through the Group Priority Sort as well as participant feedback following the symposium. A total of 37 participants attended the symposium from a variety of settings and organizations. Using the Group Priority Sort technique, 30 topics were classified by priority to be included in a future resource. Participant feedback pertaining to the symposium and research methods was largely positive. Several areas of improvement, such as clarity of items, were identified from this case study. The Group Priority Sort technique was an efficient method for obtaining valuable suggestions from a diverse group of stakeholders, including patients and family members. The specific priorities and feedback obtained from the symposium will be incorporated into a resource for healthcare organizations to aid them in engaging patients in health IT initiatives. Additionally, five important considerations were identified when conducting future work with the Group Priority Sort technique and are outlined in this paper.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Patient engagement strategies in health service delivery have become more common in recent years. However, many healthcare organizations are challenged in identifying the best methods to engage patients in health information technology (IT) initiatives. Engaging with important stakeholders to identify effective opportunities can inform the development of a resource that addresses this issue and supports organizations in their endeavors. The purpose of this paper is to share our experience and lessons learned from applying a novel consensus-building technique in order to identify key elements for effective patient engagement in health IT initiatives. This will be done through a case study approach.
METHODS METHODS
Patients, family members of patients, health professionals, researchers, students, vendor representatives and individuals who work in health IT roles in health organizations were engaged through a one-day symposium in Toronto, Canada in September, 2018. During the symposium, the Group Priority Sort technique was used to obtain structured feedback from symposium attendees in the context of small group discussions. Descriptive statistics and a content analysis were undertaken to analyze the data collected through the Group Priority Sort as well as participant feedback following the symposium.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 37 participants attended the symposium from a variety of settings and organizations. Using the Group Priority Sort technique, 30 topics were classified by priority to be included in a future resource. Participant feedback pertaining to the symposium and research methods was largely positive. Several areas of improvement, such as clarity of items, were identified from this case study.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The Group Priority Sort technique was an efficient method for obtaining valuable suggestions from a diverse group of stakeholders, including patients and family members. The specific priorities and feedback obtained from the symposium will be incorporated into a resource for healthcare organizations to aid them in engaging patients in health IT initiatives. Additionally, five important considerations were identified when conducting future work with the Group Priority Sort technique and are outlined in this paper.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1186/s40900-020-00203-8 PMID: 32477591 PMC: PMC7236324
pubmed: 32477591
doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00203-8
pii: 203
pmc: PMC7236324
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

25

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Références

BMC Public Health. 2014 Jun 25;14:648
pubmed: 24966036
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Oct 8;21(10):e14683
pubmed: 31596241
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Sep;33(9):1627-34
pubmed: 25201668
CMAJ. 2018 May 22;190(20):E607
pubmed: 29789284
Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2017;30(3):80-92
pubmed: 29457771
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2007 Mar 1;64(5):536-43
pubmed: 17322168
Health Policy. 2019 Feb;123(2):203-214
pubmed: 30352755
Nurs Stand. 2004 Aug 25-31;18(50):33-40
pubmed: 15384305
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14:89
pubmed: 24568690
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 2;13(3):e0193579
pubmed: 29499043
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Mar;38(3):359-367
pubmed: 30830822
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):223-31
pubmed: 23381514
Healthc Q. 2018 Dec;21(SP):68-72
pubmed: 30566407
Healthc Q. 2018 Dec;21(SP):61-67
pubmed: 30566406
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Aug;25(8):626-32
pubmed: 26993640
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Nov 16;18(11):e294
pubmed: 27852556
Int J Cardiol. 2019 Oct 15;293:294-296
pubmed: 31350037
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Feb 7;16(1):5
pubmed: 29415734
Fam Pract. 1993 Mar;10(1):76-81
pubmed: 8477899
RMD Open. 2019 Sep 13;5(2):e001014
pubmed: 31565245
Healthc Q. 2011;14(4):47-53
pubmed: 22116566
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Sep;105:31-37
pubmed: 28750909
J Addict Nurs. 2017 Jul/Sep;28(3):110-116
pubmed: 28863051

Auteurs

Brian Lo (B)

1Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, M6J 1H4 ON Canada.
2Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, M5T 1P8 ON Canada.

Timothy Zhang (T)

1Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, M6J 1H4 ON Canada.
3School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, N2L 3G1 ON Canada.

Kevin Leung (K)

1Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, M6J 1H4 ON Canada.
2Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, M5T 1P8 ON Canada.

Rohan Mehta (R)

1Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, M6J 1H4 ON Canada.

Craig Kuziemsky (C)

4Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, K1N 6N5 ON Canada.

Richard G Booth (RG)

5Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, London, N6A 3K7 ON Canada.

Anna Chyjek (A)

1Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, M6J 1H4 ON Canada.
2Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, M5T 1P8 ON Canada.

Sarah Collins Rossetti (SC)

6Department of Biomedical Informatics and School of Nursing, Columbia University, 622 W. 168th Street, Presbyterian Building 20th Floor, New York, 10032 NY USA.

Drew McLean (D)

7McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, L8S 4L8 ON Canada.

Elizabeth Borycki (E)

8School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Human & Social Development Building A202, 3800 Finnerty Road (Ring Road), Victoria, V8P 5C2 BC Canada.

David McLay (D)

2Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, M5T 1P8 ON Canada.

Justin Noble (J)

Canada Health Infoway, 150 King Street West Suite 1300, Toronto, M5H 1J9 ON Canada.

Shawn Carter (S)

10Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, 700 Gordon Street West, Whitby, L1N 5S9 ON Canada.

Gillian Strudwick (G)

1Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto, M6J 1H4 ON Canada.
2Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, M5T 1P8 ON Canada.

Classifications MeSH