Developing a Tool to Measure Person-Centered Care in Service Planning
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 15516994 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Victoria Stanhope (0000-0002-5648-3545, New York University, autor correspondente), Daniel Baslock (0000-0003-0092-7300, New York University), Janis Tondora (0000-0003-2997-8136, Yale University), Lauren Jessell (0000-0003-3590-8652, New York University), Abigail M Ro (0000-0003-3706-4166, Fordham University), Abigail M Ross, Steven C Marcu (0000-0001-7819-3824, University of Pennsylvania), Steven C Marcus |
| Ano | 2021 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Páginas | 681597-681597 |
| Data de publicação | 2021-08-02 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Frontiers in Psychiatry (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 1664-0640 • E-ISSN: 1664-0640 |
| Editora | Frontiers Media (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.681597 |
| PMID | 34408678 |
| OpenAlex | W3187716451 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Referências citadas | 25 |
Background: Delivering person-centered care is a key component of health care reform. Despite widespread endorsement, medical and behavioral health settings struggle to specify and measure person-centered care objectively. This study presents the validity and reliability of the Person-Centered Care Planning Assessment Measure (PCCP-AM), an objective measure of the extent to which service planning is person-centered. Methods: Based upon the recovery-oriented practice of person-centered care planning, the 10-item PCCP-AM tool rates service plans on the inclusion of service user strengths, personal life goals, natural supports, self-directed actions and the promotion of community integration. As part of a large randomized controlled trial of person-centered care planning, service plans completed by community mental health clinic providers were rated using the PCCP-AM. Reliability was tested by calculating inter-rater reliability across 168 plans and internal consistency across 798 plans. To test concurrent validity, PCCP-AM scores for 84 plans were compared to expert rater scores on a separate instrument. Results: Interrater reliability for each of the 10 PCCP-AM items as measured by Kendall's W ranged from W = 0.77 to W = 0.89 and percent of scores within ± 1 point of each other ranged from 85.7 to 100%. Overall internal consistency as measured by Cronbach's alpha across 798 plans was α = 0.72. Concurrent validity as measured by Kendall's W ranged from W = 0.55 to W = 0.74 and percent of item scores within ± 1 point of expert rater scores ranged from 73.8 to 86.8%. Conclusions: Findings demonstrated that the 10-item PCCP-AM was a valid and reliable objective measure of person-centered care. Using the service plan as an indicator of multiple domains of person-centered care, the measure provides a valuable tool to inform clinical supervision and quality improvement across programs. More psychometric testing is needed to strengthen the measure for research purposes
Cronbach's alpha · Health care · Inter-rater reliability · Mental health · Psychiatry · Psychometrics · Rating scale · Reliability (semiconductor · Applied Psychology · Clinical Psychology · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Nursing · Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology
Recovery as a journey of the heart.
Systematic Review of the Effects of Shared Decision-Making on Patient Satisfaction, Treatment Adherence and Health Status
What ‘Patient-Centered’ Should Mean: Confessions Of An Extremist
A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity
A refined compilation of implementation strategies
On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha
Decreasing Psychiatric Symptoms by Increasing Choice in Services for Adults with Histories of Homelessness
The Quality Implementation Framework
Do Providers Know What They Do Not Know? A Correlational Study of Knowledge Acquisition and Person-Centered Care
Why The Nation Needs A Policy Push On Patient-Centered Health Care
| Velocidade de citação | historical |
|---|---|
| Altamente citado | Não |