Rationale and aims: Patient-centered care is a recognized clinical method and ideal for patient - health professional relationships. Many definitions have influenced its evolution. For this research, our aim was: (1) to assess definitions and descriptions of patient-centered care to draw out elements of patient-centered care that are considered to be important markers of successful patient-centered care in the patient - health professional relationship and (2) to propose a set of elements that collectively reflect the diversity of ‘patient-centered’ definitions that describe the patient-professional relationship in this literature. A secondary aim was (3) to provide elements that could be used for development of a quality assessment tool.Methods: We conducted a critical interpretive review of patient-centered care and patient-centered communication literature, beginning with a critical synthesis that yielded 12 articles that introduced new theoretical and definitional work on patient-centered care and patient-centered communication. We used an inductive and iterative analysis process to identify and group common themes. We used operational language to describe these themes. Results: We identified 6 elements (each with 2 or more sub-elements) of the patient - health professional relationship that are considered important markers of successful patient-centered care (as found in this literature). The 6 elements are: (1) Engaging the Patient as a Whole Person, (2) Recognizing and Responding to Emotions, (3) Fostering a Therapeutic Alliance, (4) Promoting an Exchange of Information, (5) Sharing Decision-Making and (6) Enabling Continuity of Care, Self-Management and Patient Navigation. Conclusions: Comparable fundamental elements were common among most authors within this literature: we found that variation in theory was typically a matter of degree and language. This work contributes analyses towards greater theoretical consistency for conceptions of patient-centered care. It also provides avenues for future development of quality assurance benchmarks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ells et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: