PUBLICATION REVIEW

By Astrodita Adya Seta

1. PAPER INFORMATION
a. Title : A person-centered integrated care quality framework, based on a
qualitative study of patients’ evaluation of care in light of chronic care ideals.
b. Authors : Gro Berntsen , Audhild Høyem, Idar Lettrem, Cornelia Ruland, Markus
Rumpsfeld and Deede Gammon
c. Date of Publc.: 20 June 2018
d. Journal : BMC Health Service Research

2. Precis/Summery of the Argument Made

a. Authors raise several concerns regarding the quality of care for persons with
multimorbidity, and to identify about the gaps between patients and health providers
on a person-centred integrated care quality framework.

b. Authors lead such hypothesis that the PC-IC process framework can provide a basis for
the development of new qualitative and quantitative tools, which can support
management of change in health care.

c. Thus, authors conclude that the evaluation of care by PC-IC process framework has
capability to capture such as the quality of a goal identification process and the
system’s ability to share goals, care plans, delivery monitoring and goal evaluation
across relevant contributors.

3. Review
a. Subject matter
The authors try to make quantitative instruments that evaluate the patient care
experiences in light of chronic care ideals. Authors have leads to explore how the PC-IC
process ideal might be useful as a guide to capture individualized Patient Pathway (iPP)
quality and then apply, refine, and operationalize this ideal into a quality of care
framework.
Authors aim that PC-IC represents quality dimensions which are best assessed by
the patient. Both person-centred care and integrated care concepts pertain to how the
 multi-faceted care system creates a seamless, personalized pathway that addresses the
person’s needs, values and preferences as they develop over time.
b. Methodology for research / improvement papers
The research is a qualitative evaluative study which conducted within a
pragmatic interactionist tradition. It aimed to include informants with a wide range of
experiences in long-term health challenges. The material incorporates data from 19
persons with long-term complex care needs. The data collected from all informants
who filled a questionnaire on their socioeconomic and demographic background.
Interviews were conducted to the informants for evaluating any mistakes and
identifying the important events. Then, Authors extracted the answers to each of the
key questions in each PC-IC stage for each informant. The informants’ responses were
summarized in a spreadsheet to ensure analytic consistency across informants.

c. Result
Authors found the informants assessed their care in terms of their long-term life
goals, although some also focused on the other goals. Several informants viewed about
the care system only, not the individual professional side, as responsible for care
delivery. They demonstrated that the application of the PC-IC process framework to
patient experiences showed that providers do not record nor share goals, care plans,
monitoring of care delivery nor goal evaluation for persons with multimorbidity across
the care system.
This study examines one domain of quality of care. Quality is a multi-dimensional
construct, and there are many other quality domains not evaluated. Therefore, remain
patients cannot be expected to assess the area of technical quality. The method of
evaluating quality may not exclude between the review and assessment of other quality
domains.

d. Conclusions
This research reveal the important weaknesses which are usually associated with
fragmented and discontinuous care for multimorbid informants. This paper claims
about alteration gaps in health care quality within a long-term goal-oriented PC-IC
process.

e. Style
 I can understand about the goals from the case. I argue that authors analyze the
problem by measuring the communication aspect of patients and health care providers.
They consider about the gaps in patient care system, such as delivery system design,
community resources, care pathways, and continuity of care. This paper is good enough
and relates to the current situation of health care providers. I do agree to the paper as
references for improving quality of health care workers in health care facilities.

4. Learning and Reflection

I appreciate to the research, which has some important elements to be considered. I can
learn by analysing from these cases and awakened to the solution through real events
conducted in current issues.