STUDY QUESTION
How patient-centered are two included specialized endometriosis clinics relative to each other and how can they improve the patient-centeredness of their care?
SUMMARY ANSWER
The validated ENDOCARE questionnaire (ECQ) reliably concluded that the adjusted overall patient-centeredness did not differ between the clinics, that each clinic was significantly more patient-centered for 2 out of 10 dimensions of patient-centered endometriosis care and that clinics 1 and 2 had to improve 8 and 13 specific care aspects, respectively.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
Patient-centered endometriosis care is essential to high-quality care and is defined by 10 dimensions. The ECQ was developed, validated and proved to be reliable in a European setting of self-reported endometriosis patients but had not yet been used at a clinic level for quality management.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
A cross-sectional survey was disseminated in 2011 to all 514 women diagnosed with endometriosis during a laparoscopy indicated for pain and/or infertility during a retrospective 2-year period (2009–2010) in two university clinics from two different European countries.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
In total 337 patients completed the ECQ (216 and 121 per clinic). Respondents had a mean age of 34.3 years. Three in four reported a surgical diagnosis of moderate or severe endometriosis and the majority reported surgical treatment by a multidisciplinary team. The ECQ assessed the 10 dimensions of patient-centeredness, more specifically whether the health-care performance, as perceived by patients, measured up to what is important to patients in general.
MAIN RESULTS
The ECQ was completed by 337 respondents (response rate = 65.6%). Reliability and validity of the ECQ for use on clinic level were confirmed. Clinics did not differ in overall mean importance scores; importance rankings of the ECQ dimensions were almost identical. The overall patient-centeredness scores (PCS), adjusted for education level, did not discriminate between the clinics. However, the adjusted PCS for the dimensions ‘clinic staff’ and ‘technical skills’ were significantly better in clinic 1, whereas the dimensions ‘physical comfort’ and ‘access to care’ were significantly better in clinic 2. There were 8 (clinic 1) and 13 (clinic 2) targets identified for joint and cross-clinic improvement.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
Response rates were relatively high. Recall bias was the most important limitation and research in more clinics is needed to define the statistical discriminative value of the ECQ.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
European endometriosis clinics can use the validated ECQ for reliable assessment of their ‘patient-centeredness’, for comparison with others and for setting specific targets to improve the patient-centeredness of their endometriosis care, to plan interventions, and to evaluate their effectiveness.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST
This work was funded by KU Leuven and European Network of Endometriosis (ENE), supported by the European Commission (Public Health Executive Agency). No competing interests are declared.
Source:
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/27/11/3168?rss=1
Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith
