Patient Relations Measurement and Reporting to Improve Quality and Safety: Lessons from a Pilot Project
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Effective patient relations can improve the patient experience and the safe delivery of care. Recent Ontario policy and legislative changes have increased accountabilities for healthcare organizations and expanded Health Quality Ontario's mandate to measure and report on patient relations. The purpose of this pilot project was to support improved care by validating standardized measures, data submission processes and prototype reporting of patient relations indicators for the hospital, home and community care and long-term care sectors across Ontario. METHODS: Health Quality Ontario identified potential indicators and best practices by performing a comprehensive environmental scan and consulting with experts, including patients and caregivers. It shortlisted indicators based on alignment to best practices and Ontario legislative requirements. A provincial advisory group then used a modified Delphi process to prioritize and recommend five patient relations indicators for province-wide measurement and comparative public reporting. Through the pilot project, these indicators were validated using facility-level data for fiscal year (FY) 2015-2016 from 29 hospitals, home and community care organizations and long-term care homes across Ontario. RESULTS: In June 2016, Health Quality Ontario recruited 34 organizations for the pilot project. Twenty-nine sites successfully submitted summary-level data on patient relations indicators. More than 90% of the required data were retrieved from existing papers or electronic systems. All sites mapped facility-level "complaint" and "action taken" categories to the provincial standardized categories. Across the three health sectors, "care and treatment" was the top complaint category in FY 2015-2016. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot project reinforced the value of measuring patient relations and reporting feedback to support facility- and system-level improvement. The pilot sites and provincial advisory group recommended phased implementation. This would permit healthcare organizations to standardize data collection and align with provincial indicators and categories. The next step would be voluntary data submission to Health Quality Ontario in advance of any reporting. To facilitate voluntary implementation, Health Quality Ontario included one indicator, "complaints acknowledged," in the annual Quality Improvement Plans beginning in FY 2018-2019. This will allow organizations to monitor and report on the percentage of complaints acknowledged within 2, 5 and 10 days. Implementation will evolve based on input from patients, health sector organizations, Local Health Integration Networks and the Patient Ombudsman.
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 | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».