The Unmet Needs of Patients and Carers within Community Based Primary Health Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Community Based Primary Health Care (CBPHC) is positioned as the foundation of integrated health systems, intended to support broader goals of population health and health system sustainability. CBPHC moves beyond traditional primary care (a physician visit) to team based care that spans organizational boundaries (such as primary care clinics + community care services). At the core of CBPHC are patients and their informal carers (family and friends) who can inform ongoing reforms in this sector by sharing their experience, particularly in areas that require improvement. The objective of this paper is to share the unmet needs of patients and caregivers within CBPHC.Methods: This study is part of a broader programme of research called, implementing integrated care for older adults with complex health needs (iCOACH). Semi-structured interviews are being conducted with older patients with complex care needs and with unpaid, informal carers across multiple CBPHC sites in Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and New Zealand. Interviews captured the roles, characteristics and needs of patients and carers, and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews were reviewed by multiple team members and a consensus codebook was created. The code “unmet need” was extracted from the patient and carer transcripts, and analyzed for core themes using an inductive approach.Results: Unmet needs culminated into three broad themes across patient and carer interviews: Accessing Care; Quality of Care; and Missing Care. Many patients accessed care within CBPHC, but the model itself tended to be spread across multiple settings and providers. Patients and carers also required access to services that were outside the CBPHC model. Challenges arose due to lack of transportation, out-of-pocket expenses, limited availability of assistive devices to support mobility, and long wait times. Quality of care and relationships were compromised if there was a language barrier, and when services were misaligned with the preferences of patients and carers. Components of care were often missing, such as respite care for carers, supports for instrumental activities of daily living (e.g., home maintenance and transportation), and supports to reduce social isolation.Conclusions: Due to the complex health and social needs of patients and carers, they often require access to multiple services and providers who are seldom situated under the same roof . Finding ways to integrate across organizational boundaries may reduce areas of unmet need. Furthermore greater attention to the social determinants of health within CBPHC may create a more holistic experience for patients and carers.Lessons Learned: CBPHC is intended to deliver holistic integrated care but when situated within a fragmented health care system, challenges for patients and carers persist.Limitations: Further comparisons need to be made between the unmet needs between patients and caregivers in Canada and New Zealand.Suggestions for future research: Next steps will include the development of a framework that describes the policy and organizational context, and provider configurations in each of the study jurisdictions. How these factors relate to different patient and carer needs and experiences, including areas of unmet need, will be explored to inform the development of person centered CBPHC models.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».