To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
As the notion of person-centredness of health services and systems is becoming more established in national and international policy declarations and commitments, there is a need to better understand and clarify the use and usefulness of relevant strategies and approaches that seek to improve the position of individuals, their families and communities in the health system.
This book takes as a starting point the various roles people take in health systems, while recognizing that these roles overlap and may be performed simultaneously (see Chapter 1). Indeed, as Coulter (2002) suggested, the 21st-century health service user is at once “a decision-maker, a care manager, a co-producer of health, an evaluator, a potential change agent, a taxpayer and an active citizen whose voice must be heard by decision-makers” (p. 6). Viewed through this lens, a greater person focus can contribute to advancing equity, efficiency and the responsiveness of health systems.
Overcoming care fragmentation remains among the key challenges facing health systems globally (Nolte & McKee, 2008; Saini et al., 2017; Schoen et al., 2011). This has become particularly acute against the background of a changing disease burden and the rising number of people with multiple health problems. Policy-makers have recognized this challenge and countries are exploring new approaches to health care delivery to enhance the coordination of care and so better meet the needs of those with chronic and multiple health problems and optimize service use (Nolte, Knai & Saltman, 2014; Wodchis et al., 2015; World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2016). The focus has tended to be on the service provider side, with the introduction of innovative care models such as through strengthening multidisciplinary team work, the use of care coordinators or case managers, co-location of different providers, and shared pathways, among other developments (Nolte & Knai, 2015).
As we have seen in the introduction to this book, there remains a lack of consensus about the actual meaning of patient or person ‘centredness’ in the context of health systems. There is considerable overlap with concepts such as ‘empowerment’ and ‘participation’. Some view empowerment as a core principle or dimension of patient-centred care (Docteur & Coulter, 2012; International Alliance for Patients’ Organizations, 2006), while others define centredness as a foundation or prerequisite for achieving empowerment (Castro et al., 2016; Lhussier et al., 2015).
A wide range of reviews have been carried out over the past two decades to better understand patient- and person-centred care and related concepts.
As we have seen in Chapter 2 of this book, the terminology and interpretations of person-centredness vary across disciplines, professionals and stakeholders. A common theme underlying the diverse understandings is the ethical premise that people as patients and service users, and, by extension, family members, members of the community and citizens more broadly, should be treated as persons, with respect and dignity, and that care should take into account their needs, wants and preferences. However, expectations regarding the outcomes of enhanced person-centred care vary among stakeholders. Thus, managers and decision-makers might anticipate increased efficiency and wider system level effects, while others emphasize more effective engagement at the interpersonal level. Different understandings and perspectives will significantly impact on the translation of principles into practice, and on the perceived or demonstrated effectiveness of relevant initiatives and strategies.
There is now widespread acceptance, in political and policy declarations, that the individual citizen should be at the heart of the health system (OECD Health Ministerial Meeting, 2017; World Health Organization, 2016; World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2015). A person-focused approach has been advocated on political, ethical and instrumental grounds and is believed to benefit service users, health professionals and the health system more broadly (Dieterich, 2007; Duggan et al., 2006; Richards, Coulter & Wicks, 2015). However, and in contrast to the political and policy emphasis placed upon ‘person focus’, there is continuing debate about its actual meaning in the health care context vis-à-vis concepts such as ‘patient-centred’, ‘user-centred’, ‘family-centred’ or ‘people-centred’ care, or indeed ‘personalized’ health care, as well as the strategies that are available and effective to promote and implement ‘person focus’
The idea of person-centred health systems is widely advocated in political and policy declarations to better address health system challenges. A person-centred approach is advocated on political, ethical and instrumental grounds and believed to benefit service users, health professionals and the health system more broadly. However, there is continuing debate about the strategies that are available and effective to promote and implement 'person-centred' approaches. This book brings together the world's leading experts in the field to present the evidence base and analyse current challenges and issues. It examines 'person-centredness' from the different roles people take in health systems, as individual service users, care managers, taxpayers or active citizens. The evidence presented will not only provide invaluable policy advice to practitioners and policymakers working on the design and implementation of person-centred health systems but will also be an excellent resource for academics and graduate students researching health systems in Europe. This title is available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
To study (a) the covariation between patient reported experience measures (PREMs) and registered process measures of access and continuity when ranking providers in a primary care setting, and (b) whether registered process measures or PREMs provided more or less information about potential linkages between levels of access and continuity and explaining variables.
Background
Access and continuity are important objectives in primary care. They can be measured through registered process measures or PREMs. These measures do not necessarily converge in terms of outcomes. Patient views are affected by factors not necessarily reflecting quality of services. Results from surveys are often uncertain due to low response rates, particularly in vulnerable groups. The quality of process measures, on the other hand, may be influenced by registration practices and are often more easy to manipulate. With increased transparency and use of quality measures for management and governance purposes, knowledge about the pros and cons of using different measures to assess the performance across providers are important.
Methods
Four regression models were developed with registered process measures and PREMs of access and continuity as dependent variables. Independent variables were characteristics of providers as well as geographical location and degree of competition facing providers. Data were taken from two large Swedish county councils.
Findings
Although ranking of providers is sensitive to the measure used, the results suggest that providers performing well with respect to one measure also tended to perform well with respect to the other. As process measures are easier and quicker to collect they may be looked upon as the preferred option. PREMs were better than process measures when exploring factors that contributed to variation in performance across providers in our study; however, if the purpose of comparison is continuous learning and development of services, a combination of PREMs and registered measures may be the preferred option. Above all, our findings points towards the importance of a pre-analysis of the measures in use; to explore the pros and cons if measures are used for different purposes before they are put into practice.
In 2007, a new wave of local reforms involving choice for the population and privatisation of providers was initiated in Swedish primary care. Important objectives behind reforms were to strengthen the role of primary care and to improve performance in terms of access and responsiveness. The purpose of this article was to compare the characteristics of the new models and to discuss changes in financial incentives for providers and challenges regarding governance from the part of county councils. A majority of the models being introduced across the 21 county councils can best be described as innovative combinations between a comprehensive responsibility for providers and significant degrees of freedom regarding choice for the population. Key financial characteristics of fixed payment and comprehensive financial responsibility for providers may create financial incentives to under-provide care. Informed choices by the population, in combination with reasonably low barriers for providers to enter the primary care market, should theoretically counterbalance such incentives. To facilitate such competition is indeed a challenge, not only because of difficulties in implementing informed choices but also because the new models favour large and/or horizontally integrated providers. To prevent monopolistic behaviour, county councils may have to accept more competition as well as more governance over clinical practice than initially intended.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.