Do perceptions of family-centered care differ in older and younger family/caregivers of U.S. veterans?
Keywords: family-centered care. Veterans, collaboration, caregivers, health care delivery
In recent years more value has been placed on patient and family experiences with health care delivery (Institute for Healthcare Improvement [IHI], 2012). Exemplary delivery involves partnering with patients and family/caregivers as part of the health care team, engaging them in decisions, providing opportunities for communication and collaboration (Luxford, Safran, & Delbanco, 2011; Warren, 2012), and providing needed support (LaVela, Johnson, Miskevics, & Weaver, 2012). Family/caregivers (hereafter referred to as "caregivers") are typically family members or friends who provide unpaid assistance and participate in the care of a patient/ loved one in many ways (such as: accompanying to appointments, being present for procedures; Family Caregiver Alliance [FCA], 2012; Institute for Patient-and Family-Centered Care, 2010). Caregivers are positioned to have an intimate understanding of the patients' needs (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ], 2015) and often have insight on contextual factors (Weiner et al., 2010) that can serve as practical barriers (such as lack of transportation or financial concerns), making their involvement in the health care delivery process vital. As such, efforts to involve caregivers, improve their experience with the health care system, and maintain their well-being need attention (LaVela & Ather, 2010).
In family-centered care (FCC), the patient and family are considered as a single unit of care (Shields & Tanner, 2004). FCC is defined as a mutually beneficial partnership based on (a) respect: individuals are acknowledged and valued; (b) collaboration: partnering in health care decisions; and (c) support: assisting with patient/caregiver dyad needs (Mitchell, Chaboyer, Burmeister, & Foster, 2009; Shields, Pratt & Hunter, 2006). Caregiver involvement in health care and decisions about their loved one helps support the caregiver while they pursue the best care for the patient and promotes sustainable commitment to the role, because burden is lessened when caregivers are a welcomed part of the health care team. Key features to caregiver engagement include: shared information and decision making, self-efficacy in health communication, negotiation, accessible care providers, recognizing caregivers' needs, and having the care provided fit well within the context of the family (Creasy, Lutz, Young, Ford, & Martz, 2013; Hoerger et al., 2013; Kuo et al., 2012a; Masters et al., 2012). These factors work together to provide better caregiver experiences and better patient health outcomes. FCC may lead to safer, better quality health care (Johnson, Abraham, & Shelton, 2009) and reduced health care costs (Shields et al., 2012).
There may be differences in experiences and perceptions of FCC among older and younger caregivers. Research has found older age to be a predictor of satisfaction with health care services (Bowling et al., 2012). A greater proportion of younger caregivers report having unmet needs within the health care system, including getting information about the patient's medical care and receiving less support than older caregivers (Girgis, Lambert, & Lecathelinais, 2011; Kim, Kashy, Spillers, & Evans, 2010; Potter et al., 2010; Romito, Goldzweig, Cormio, Hagedoorn, & Andersen, 2013). Understanding the perceptions of older and younger caregivers is important in order to meet the needs of increasingly diversified age groups of family/caregivers of Veterans (National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics [NCVAS], 2014). In this article, we use a mixed methods design to explore FCC in the VA. The objectives are: (a) to examine family/caregiver perceptions of FCC in VA facilities in which their Veteran loved one receives health care, and (b) to understand differences in, and compare perceptions of, FCC by caregiver age. This project was conducted as a quality improvement project (classified by VA Central IRB) to evaluate and understand patient- and FCC delivery in the VA health care system.
This was a national cross-sectional survey design in which we mailed a survey (containing closed- and open-ended questions) to caregivers of Veterans receiving health care at one of eight geographically dispersed VA health care facilities.
The family member, friend, or informal caregiver was identified by a Veteran patient as someone who helps them with their care in any way, such as providing transportation and/or attending appointments. Veterans were asked to provide the survey to their caregiver to complete. Caregivers were provided with a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope to return their survey.
Data Collection Instrument
Our survey instrument included FCC constructs, caregiver demographic characteristics, and an open-ended question about the caregiver experience in VA.
We modified the caregiver version of the Family-Centered Care Survey (FCCS) to measure respect, collaboration, and support (Aggarwal et al., 2009) in caregivers of veteran primary care patients. The FCCS is a publically available, reliable 20-item instrument developed by Shields and Tanner (2004). Early versions were used in pediatric settings (Shields & Tanner, 2004) and adult critical care (Mitchell et al., 2009). We modified the language slightly for relevance in an adult primary care setting, for example: "The staff includes my family in the care of my child" was changed to "The staff includes my family in the care of my loved one."
Measurement of FCC was comprised of three subscales: (a) respect (six items, such as "I feel like a visitor rather than a relative when I attend the unit"); (b) collaboration (nine items, such as "The staff give me honest information about the care that my relative may need"); and (c) support (five items, such as "All team members listen to my concerns"). A 4-point Likert scale (1 = never to 4 = always) was used to assess how often a stated event occurred. Fligher mean scores indicated perceptions of higher (better) levels of FCC.
We collected demographic characteristics of the caregiver, including: gender (male, female); race/ethnicity (White, Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, American Indian, or Alaska Native); highest level of education attained (did not complete elementary school, elementary (Grades 1-8), some high school (Grades 9-11), high school graduate (Grade 12 or GED), some college or technical school, college graduate (4 years or more); relationship to the patient (Veteran is my: spouse, child/grandchild, parent/ step parent/parent-in-law, other family member/ relative, partner/significant other/member of unmarried relationship, sibling, grandparent, friend, other), and age (continuous variable, dichotomized as less than 60 years of age [younger caregivers] vs. 60 years of age and older [older caregivers]). We dichotomized our caregiver group by the age of 60 to understand age differences; based on "older population" defined as aged 60 and older (World Health Organization [WHO], 2015), and individuals aged 60 and older classified as "older caregivers" (Lindberg, Owen, & Ulstad, 2013).
Free Text Item
To qualitatively examine FCC perceptions of caregivers of Veteran patients, we asked an open-ended question about the general VA experience: "We are interested in knowing more about your general experience with the VA, as the family member of a VA patient, in your own words."
Quantitative. We examined demographic information and perceptions of FCC descriptively: overall and by age categories. We used chi-square and t tests to examine differences in demographics, mean individual FCC items, and FCC construct scores (respect, collaboration, and support) between older and younger caregivers. In addition, to assess potential differences in older/younger participant's perceptions of FCC when considering race, we ran three regression models, one for each FCC subscale, looking at the main effects of: age, race, and the Age X Race interaction term.
In absence of literature describing the handling of missing data for FCCS scoring, we established criteria for analysis of each subscale. Responses were required for at least four out of six questions for the respect scale; six out of nine for the collaboration scale; and three out of five for the support scale. If criteria were not met, responses were omitted from that subscale analysis. We used an alpha level of 0.05 to determine statistical significance. We performed statistical analyses on quantitative data using SAS, version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
Qualitative. We analyzed free text data using thematic analysis for each age group (60 and older vs. less than 60 years). Two qualitative researchers completed content coding on 25% of the sample (n = 388) to develop a preliminary codebook. Once the codebook was modified and coding reached saturation, overall interrater reliability was established by comparing a sample of independently coded responses (n = 100); agreement was 92%. Further, interrater reliability was calculated for each code using the same sample (n = 100), yielding an average Cohen's Kappa of 0.88. A third coder acted as a tiebreaker to make determinations in the few cases of disagreements; the three coders met and discussed until 100% agreement was achieved. We coded the remaining responses using the established codebook. Final analysis was completed using NVivo version 10 qualitative data analysis software (QSR International, Doncaster, Victoria, Australia).
We received 2,261 surveys from caregivers. Because not all veteran patients needed or identified a caregiver who regularly assists them with their health care, a true denominator was not ascertainable. We limited analyses to respondents with completed age data (n = 2,111); 93% had data available for quantitative analyses. Of the 2,111 caregivers for whom quantitative analyses were conducted, 60% were aged 60 years and older (n = 1,264) and the remaining 40% were less than 60 years of age (n = 847).
Of the 2,111 with age data, 1,555 provided a free text response to the open-ended general caregiver experience question (74% participation rate). Of these 1,555 caregivers for whom qualitative data analyses were conducted, 61% were aged 60 years and older (n = 944) and the remaining 39% were less than 60 (n = 611; see Figure 1).
Caregiver Demographic Characteristics
Overall, most caregivers were female (81%), White (64%), and had at least some college education (66%). A greater proportion of caregivers aged 60 years and older (vs. less than 60) were White (74% vs. 50%, p < .0001); did not attend college (36% vs. 31%, p = .0099), and were a spouse/partner/significant other to the Veteran (81% vs. 62%, p < .0001; see Table 1).
Family-Centered Care Survey Constructs
For most FCCS individual items, older caregivers had significantly higher scores compared with their younger counterparts (see Table 2). There were two exceptions that showed no differences by age; these also happened to be the lowest scoring items across all individual FCCS items. The items, each scoring lower than 2.5 (on 1-4 scale) included: "I feel like a visitor rather than a caregiver when attending the hospital/outpatient clinic" (M = 2.46) and "I feel overwhelmed by the information given to me about my loved one" (M = 2.13).
Overall mean subscale values were 3.30 for respect (n = 2,058), 3.07 for collaboration (n = 1,981), and 2.99 for support (n = 1,923). Older caregivers, compared with younger, reported higher values of FCC across all three subscales: respect (3.36 vs. 3.22, p < .0001); collaboration (3.12 vs. 2.98, p < .0001); and support (3.06 vs. 2.88, p < .0001). FCC scores did not differ by race for respect and support and although those who were white had lower perceptions of collaboration--the Age X Race interaction was not statistically significant for any of the three subscales, indicating that age effects were not dependent upon race for any of the FCC constructs. (see Figure 2)
Responses to the item asking participants about their general experience with the VA as the family member/caregiver of a Veteran patient, analyzed by age categories, yielded the following major themes in both age groups: collaboration and communication, and several subthemes associated with each. Due to the dynamic relationship between collaboration and communication, there were some commonalities across themes and subthemes. Two additional themes emerged about general FCC experience focused on hospital climate and physical environment. Table 3 shows the frequency of responses mentioned by participants for themes and subthemes for both age categories along with example quotes.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Collaboration was a common theme identified by caregivers. Within collaboration, two subthemes emerged from participant responses: shared information and shared decision making.
Shared information. Across both age groups, participants provided examples of negative and positive experiences about information sharing. Respondents expressed a desire to be informed at different points before, during, and after the patient's encounters, each representing times at which caregivers need to feel informed and need support.
Caregivers of all ages noted that sharing information should be a mutual effort between provider and caregiver. Participants stressed the importance of the health care team listening to, and actually hearing the caregiver out, including providers inquiring about the patient from the caregiver's perspective. This was viewed as an opportunity to learn about patient needs, that caregivers felt was sometimes missed.
Younger caregivers stressed the importance of having information shared with them about the patient's general health care and treatment plans. Younger caregivers also expressed the need for health providers to acknowledge and understand their level of involvement and commitment. Older caregivers discussed shared information in the context of specific surgeries and hospital discharges more than their younger counterparts. The experiences they described, in general, were positive when thorough and detailed information was shared. There were, however, a few examples where older caregivers stressed the desire for more information. The older cohort also stressed the importance of feeling listened to.
Shared decision making. Shared decision making was recognized across age categories as an important and necessary component of successful collaboration.
The communication theme had several important subthemes emerge; these included general interactions with staff, feelings of exclusion, and feeling welcomed.
General interactions with staff were discussed by caregivers across age categories as hospital staff being "usually friendly," "professional," while sometimes encountering "very busy people who are trying their best." Fewer mentioned encountering "unfriendly people" or "uncaring" staff. Negative interactions with staff typically referred to a specific person or clinic with which the caregiver had a bad experience.
Both younger and older cohorts similarly reported interactions with staff positively, using descriptions such as: helpful, understanding, and informative. Likewise, the younger and older caregivers shared the same general frustrations such as occasionally facing unfriendly staff (usually nonmedical) and encountering staff that are not helpful/sympathetic when waiting room delays are long.
Communication with the care team was recognized as necessary for patient/family inclusion in the delivery of care. Feelings of exclusion were discussed by several respondents. This involved a lack of rapport created primarily by lack of comfort in approaching providers with questions as well as in providers asking caregivers for feedback on the patient's needs. Younger and older caregivers described feelings of exclusion in similar ways, describing health providers as not being interested in: "my questions, understanding my perspective, or listening to my opinion." Participants also described encounters with medical staff that made them feel "not as important" as their loved one.
However, feeling welcomed also emerged as an important component of communication. Caregivers in both age groups mentioned feeling welcomed more frequently than feeling excluded. They also shared similar sentiments of how this can be expressed such as: staff addressing the caregiver specifically and listening to concerns, inviting the caregiver into the room, and communicating information to both the caregiver and the patient.
Caregivers discussed the hospital climate as the overall atmosphere in the facility, including how they and their loved one are treated as individuals, the overall disposition of staff, and the ongoing improvements to the facility.
The younger cohort noted how hospital climate influenced their experience as a caregiver. They focused on issues with staff being busy and its effect on treatment:
Residents [are] so over-worked, some are less effective when dealing with patients--even condescending and rude, wouldn't listen to my concerns, not impressed!
The older cohort discussed the impact of the hospital climate on their general experience as a caregiver. They focused on the importance of VA cultivating a caring environment:
They have really treated my son with the utmost of care and respect. They care deeply for him and for me as his mother.
Although fewer participants mentioned the physical environment, when discussed, the focus was on (a) the overall aesthetics of the facility, including design and layout; and (b) accessibility, in general and specific things such as parking. Topics addressed by the younger cohort included waiting areas and facility layout; while the older cohort focused on things such as: parking issues, cleanliness, and comfort.
The mixed methods data from this study offer a novel perspective on perceptions of FCC within a large integrated health care system. We found that caregivers reported high perceptions of key components of FCC (Shields et al., 2012) in their VA primary care experiences; specifically with regard to respect and collaboration, but additional attention may be warranted in the provision of support. Understanding the support needs for caregivers is necessary to maximize their role as caregiver (Pickard, 2004), yet providing this support is an area that has not been successfully addressed (Bastawrous, 2013).
Our findings show that caregivers would benefit from interactions with a health care team that is familiar with their loved one's special needs, listens to their concerns, understands what the family is going through, and provides care continuity. Literature indicates that caregivers who are active in their loved one's care have higher perceptions of FCC (Mitchell et al., 2009). Similarly, a FCC culture may improve caregivers' participation in care planning and decision making, sharing of medical information by caregivers, and may augment perceptions that health providers are actively listening and showing respect (Kuo et al., 2012b).
Older caregivers of Veterans reported higher perceptions of respect, collaboration, and support than their younger counterparts (independent of race). It is possible that younger caregivers of veterans have lower perceptions of health care delivery experiences due to the influence that providing informal care has on their well-being. Previous research suggests that caregivers aged 60 or younger reported needing more support (McNamara & Rosenwax, 2010).
Caregivers' free text responses supplemented and enhanced our understanding of their FCC perspectives. These qualitative data provided examples highlighting collaboration and communication as key factors influencing FCC culture, and identified hospital climate and physical environment as influences of FCC perceptions, although to a lesser degree.
Previous studies have reported the desire of both patients and caregivers to be involved in the health providers' efforts to collaborate and coordinate across settings and services (Bechtel & Ness, 2010). Information sharing and shared decision making are recommended components of FCC (Johnson et al., 2008), but family perspectives have not been widely studied. Our caregiver cohort stressed the importance of shared information, being involved in decision making, having pleasant interactions with staff, and feeling welcomed and not excluded for successful collaboration and communication. Prior literature has identified collaboration and communication as important to caregiver needs and overall perceptions of FCC, but is often lacking (Bamm & Rosenbaum, 2008; Davidson et al., 2007; Shields & Tanner, 2004).
In our cohort, younger caregivers focused on the need for general health information and needing to feel acknowledged for their involvement and commitment. Older caregivers focused more on specific details about treatment and discharge plans, and the positive influence that listening and being listened to has on their satisfaction. This is consistent with literature indicating older individuals are generally more satisfied with health care services and complain less (Rahmqvist & Bara, 2010). Collectively, our findings suggest efforts to improve collaboration and communication as part of FCC may be enhanced thorough information sharing, shared decision making, and positive (welcoming) interactions with health care staff that may need to be tailored to the distinct needs of caregivers of varying ages.
Qualitative findings also revealed caregivers' perceptions of hospital climate and elements of the physical environment as contributing factors to FCC. Navigating a complex facility was cited as a source of frustration, and older caregivers, specifically, expressed concerns with parking and the need for comfort while in the hospital setting. Although the physical environment is emphasized as an important component of patient-centered care (Becker & Douglass, 2008), it has received less attention with regard to FCC delivery for caregivers of adult primary care patients.
Our self-reported study data may result in recall and nonresponse bias which may produce imprecise FCC values. As not all veterans have caregivers who assist their care, we do not have a true denominator/response rate. Data may have been collected from a caregiver who plays a minor role in the patient's care and may not be exposed to FCC in the health care setting. We adapted the FCCS to fit the adult study cohort, but validity was not tested. Despite these limitations, our study highlighted some unmet needs and a disparity between older and younger caregiver FCC perceptions.
Acknowledging the contribution of caregivers of Veterans, VA has made efforts to provide help (financial assistance, training, respite care) through different initiatives (Glynn, 2013), such as the "Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010" (Veteran Affairs, 2015). Although VA is doing very well in the provision of FCC, additional efforts may be aimed toward younger caregivers, addressing issues related to "support," and expanding efforts for better information sharing, collaboration between patient/family/providers, and climate/environmental enhancements. Additional support should be provided to caregivers of veterans, with targeted efforts in more vulnerable groups (McNamara & Rosenwax, 2010), such as younger caregivers. Efforts to develop and expand partnerships between health care providers, patients, and caregivers are warranted. Future research may focus on collecting family perspectives of FCC components, such as information sharing and shared decision making, and using this information to develop tailored health care services to meet the needs of diverse caregiver groups, such as those of varying age.
Sherri L. La Vela, PhD. MBA. MPH
Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, and Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
Stephanie Turcios, MPH, Alex Malhiot, MS, Bella Etingen, MA, Jennifer N. Hill, MA, and Scott Miskevics, BS
Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
This article was published Online First March 17, 2016.
Sherri L. LaVela, PhD, MBA, MPH, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Health Services Research & Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois; Center for Evaluation of Practices and Experiences of Patient-Centered Care (CEPEP), Department of Veterans Affairs, Hines VA Hospital; Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University; Stephanie Turcios, MPH, Alex Malhiot, MS, Bella Etingen, MA, Jennifer N. Hill, MA, and Scott Miskevics, BS, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Health Services Research & Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, Hines VA Hospital, and Center for Evaluation of Practices and Experiences of Patient-Centered Care (CEPEP), Department of Veterans Affairs, Hines VA Hospital.
This material is based on work supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative & Office of Patient-Centered Care and Cultural Transformation (PEC 13-002; PI: LaVela). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sherri L. LaVela, PhD, MBA, MPH, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Health Services Research & Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital, 151 -H, Building 1, Office D-312, 5th Avenue & Roosevelt Road, Hines, IL 60141. E-mail: Sherri.LaVela@va.gov
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (2015). Re-Engineered Discharge (RED) Toolkit. Tool 7: Understanding and enhancing the role of family caregivers in the re-engineered discharge. Retrieved from http:// www.bu.edu/fammed/projected/Project%20RED %20Revised%20Toolkit%2092012/REDTool7 FamilyCaregiversUnitedHospital%20Fund.pdf
Aggarwal, S., Chadha, P., Kalia, S., Richardson, S., Winterbottom, L., & Shields, L. (2009). Perceptions of family-centred care: A UK pilot study of the Shields and Tanner questionnaires. Neonatal Paediatric & Child Health Nursing, 12, 25-29.
Bamm, E. L., & Rosenbaum, P. (2008). Family-centered theory: Origins, development, barriers, and supports to implementation in rehabilitation medicine. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 1618-1624. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.apmr. 2007.12.034
Bastawrous, M. (2013). Caregiver burden--A critical discussion. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50, 431-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .ijnurstu.2012.10.005
Bechtel, C., & Ness, D. L. (2010). If you build it, will they come? Designing truly patient-centered health care. Health Affairs, 29, 914-920. http://dx.doi .org/10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0305
Becker, F., & Douglass, S. (2008). The ecology of the patient visit: Physical attractiveness, waiting times, and perceived quality of care. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 31, 128-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.JAC.0000314703 .34795.44
Bowling, A., Rowe, G., Lambert, N., Waddington, M., Mahtani, K. R., Kenten, C., ... Francis, S. A. (2012). The measurement of patients' expectations for health care: A review and psychometric testing of a measure of patients' expectations. Health Technology Assessment, 16, 1-509. http://dx.doi .org/10.3310/htal6300
Creasy, K. R., Lutz, B. J., Young, M. E., Ford, A., & Martz, C. (2013). The impact of interactions with providers on stroke caregivers' needs. Rehabilitation Nursing, 38, 88-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ rnj.69
Davidson, J. E., Powers, K., Hedayat, K. M., Tieszen, M., Kon, A. A., Shepard, E., ... Armstrong, D. (2007). Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004-2005. Critical Care Medicine, 35, 605-622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM .0000254067.14607.EB
Family Caregiver Alliance (FCA). (2012). Fact sheet: Selected caregiver statistics. San Francisco, CA: Family Caregiver Alliance. Retrieved from https://caregiver.org/selected-caregiver-statistics
Girgis, A., Lambert, S., & Lecathelinais, C. (2011). The supportive care needs survey for partners and caregivers of cancer survivors: Development and psychometric evaluation. Psycho-Oncology, 20, 387-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.1740
Glynn, S. M. (2013). Family-centered care to promote successful community reintegration after war: It takes a nation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16, 410-414. http://dx.doi .org/10.1007/s10567-013-0153-z
Hoerger, M., Epstein, R. M., Winters, P. C., Fiscella, K., Duberstein, P. R., Gramling, R., ... Kravitz, R. L. (2013). Values and options in cancer care (VOICE): Study design and rationale for a patient-centered communication and decision-making intervention for physicians, patients with advanced cancer, and their caregivers. BMC Cancer, 13, 188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-188
Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). (2012). Improvement stories. Delivering great care: Engaging patients and families as partners. Retrieved from http:// www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/ImprovementStories/ DeliveringGreatCareEngagingPatientsandFamiliesas Partners.aspx
Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care. (2010). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.ipfcc.org/faq.html
Johnson, B., Abraham, M., Conway, J., Simmons, L., Edgman-Levitan, S., Sodomka, P., ... Ford, D. (2008). Partnering with patients and families to design a patient-and family-centered health care system. Bethesda, MD: Institute for Family-Centered Care. Retrieved from http://www.ipfcc .org/pdf/PartneringwithPatientsandFamilies.pdf
Johnson. B. H., Abraham, M. R., & Shelton, T. L. (2009). Patient- and family-centered care: Partnerships for quality and safety. North Carolina Medical Journal, 70, 125-130.
Kim, Y., Kashy, D. A., Spillers, R. L., & Evans, T. V. (2010) . Needs assessment of family caregivers of cancer survivors: Three cohorts comparison. Psycho-Oncology, 19, 573-582. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1002/pon.1597
Kuo, D. Z., Houtrow, A. J., Arango, P., Kuhlthau, K. A., Simmons, J. M., & Neff, J. M. (2012a). Family-centered care: Current applications and future directions in pediatric health care. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16, 297-305. http://dx .doi.org/10.1007/s10995-011-0751-7
Kuo, D. Z., Sisterhen, L. L., Sigrest, T. E., Biazo, J. M., Aitken, M. E., & Smith, C. E. (2012b). Family experiences and pediatric health services use associated with family-centered rounds. Pediatrics, 130, 299-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2011-2623
Lavela, S. L., & Ather, N. (2010). Psychological health in older adult spousal caregivers of older adults. Chronic Illness, 6, 67-80. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1742395309356943
LaVela, S. L., Johnson, B. W., Miskevics, S., & Weaver, F. M. (2012). Impact of a multicomponent support services program on informal caregivers of adults aging with disabilities. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 55, 160-174. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.642472
Lindberg, C., Owen, G., & Ulstad, K. (2013). Caregivers to older adults: How they connect to services and how connections can be encouraged and strengthened. Saint Paul, MN: Wilder Research. Retrieved from https:// www.wilder.org/Wilder-Research/Publications/Studies/ Metropolitan%20Area%20Agency%20on%20Aging% 20-%20Caregivers%20to%2001der%20Adults/ Caregivers%20to%2001der%20Adults.pdf
Luxford, K., Safran, D. G., & Delbanco, T. (2011). Promoting patient-centered care: A qualitative study of facilitators and barriers in healthcare organizations with a reputation for improving the patient experience. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 23, 510-515. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/intqhc/mzr024
Masters, S., Gordon, J., Whitehead, C., Davies, O., Giles, L. C., & Ratcliffe, J. (2012). Coaching Older Adults and Carers to have their preferences Heard (COACH): A randomised controlled trial in an intermediate care setting (study protocol). The Australasian Medical Journal, 5, 444-454. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4066/AMJ.2012.1366
McNamara, B., & Rosenwax, L. (2010). Which carers of family members at the end of life need more support from health services and why? Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1035-1041. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.029
Mitchell, M., Chaboyer, W., Burmeister, E., & Foster, M. (2009). Positive effects of a nursing intervention on family-centered care in adult critical care. American Journal of Critical Care, 18, 543-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2009226
National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics (NCVAS). (2014). Veteran population web site. Retrieved from http://www.va.gov/vetdata/ Veteran_Population.asp
Pickard, L. (2004). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of support and services to informal carers of older people. London, UK: Audit Commission.
Potter, P., Deshields, T., Kuhrik, M., Kuhrik, N., O'Neill, J., & Rihanek, A. (2010). An analysis of educational and learning needs of cancer patients and unrelated family caregivers. Journal of Cancer Education, 25, 538-542. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1007/s13187-010-0076-z
Rahmqvist, M., & Bara, A. C. (2010). Patient characteristics and quality dimensions related to patient satisfaction. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 22, 86-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ intqhc/mzq009
Romito, F., Goldzweig, G., Cormio, C., Hagedoorn, M., & Andersen, B. L. (2013). Informal caregiving for cancer patients. Cancer, 119, 2160-2169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28057
Shields, L., Pratt, J., & Hunter, J. (2006). Family centred care: A review of qualitative studies. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 15, 1317-1323. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01433.x
Shields, L., & Tanner, A. (2004). Pilot study of a tool to investigate perceptions of family-centered care in different care settings. Pediatric Nursing, 30, 189-197.
Shields, L., Zhou, H., Pratt, J., Taylor, M., Hunter, J., & Pascoe, E. (2012). Family-centred care for hospitalised children aged 0-12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, CD004811.
Veteran Affairs (VA). (2015). VA caregiver support: Services for family caregivers of post 9/11 veterans. Retrieved from http://www.caregiver.va.gov/ support/support_benefits.asp
Warren, N. (2012). Involving patient and family advisors in the patient and family-centered care model. Medsurg Nursing, 21, 233-239.
Weiner, S. J., Schwartz, A., Weaver, F., Goldberg, J., Yudkowsky, R., Sharma, G., ... Abrams, R. I. (2010). Contextual errors and failures in individualizing patient care: A multicenter study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 153, 69-75. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.7326/0003-4819-153-2-201007200-00002
World Health Organization (WHO). (2015). Definition of an older or elderly person. Retrieved from http:// www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/ageingdefnolder/en/
Received April 28, 2015
Revision received October 2, 2015
Accepted October 8, 2015
Table 1 Family/Caregiver Demographics/Characteristics (n = 2,111) Family/Caregiver Overall % Family/caregivers Demographic/Characteristic (n = 2,111) aged < 60 (n = 847) Variables Relationship to care recipient (n = 2,051) Spouse/partner/ 73.33 62.37 significant other All other 26.67 37.63 relationships (1) Gender (n = 2,090) Female 80.86 80.12 Race (n = 2,086) White 64.38 49.94 Black 19.42 28.83 Hispanic 12.18 15.80 Other (2) 4.03 5.43 Education (n = 2,103) No college (3) 34.14 30.88 Some college/college 65.86 69.12 graduate Family/Caregiver Family/caregivers p-value Demographic/Characteristic aged [greater than Variables or equal to] 60 (n = 1,264) Relationship to care <.0001 recipient (n = 2,051) Spouse/partner/ 80.89 significant other All other 19.11 relationships (1) Gender (n = 2,090) .48 Female 81.36 Race (n = 2,086) <.0001 White 73.91 <.0001 Black 13.21 <.0001 Hispanic 9.79 <.0001 Other (2) 3.10 .01 Education (n = 2,103) .0099 No college (3) 36.32 Some college/college 63.68 graduate (1) All other relationships: child/grandchild, parent/step parent/parent-in-law, other family member/relative, sibling, grandparent, friend. (2) Other: Asian, Native Hawaiian-Other Pacific Islander, American Indian, or Alaska Native. (3) No college: did not complete elementary school, elementary (Grades 1-8), some high school (Grades 9-11), high school graduate (Grade 12 or GED). Table 2 Family-Centered Care Survey (FCCS) (Individual Items) * (n = 2,111) Mean (Standard Deviation) Overall % Family/caregivers (n = 2,111) aged < 60 (n = 847) Respect When I come to the hospital or 3.41 (.86) 3.25 (.91) outpatient clinic, I feel I am welcome as an informal caregiver to be there, (n = 2,051) Other members of my family are 3.47 (.85) 3.38 (.88) welcome to attend with me at the hospital or outpatient clinic. (n = 1,940) I am able to be with my loved one 3.44 (.84) 3.36 (.85) (the patient) through all assessments. (n = 2,033) I have the right to question 3.43 (.88) 3.30 (.94) medical and allied health recommendations about my loved one as much as I want. (n = 2,035) I feel like a visitor rather than a 2.46(1.20) 2.51 (1.14) caregiver when attending the hospital/outpatient clinic, (n = 1,973) Did you feel your loved one's 3.58 (.73) 3.50 (.78) assessments were carried out with privacy and confidentiality? (n = 2.041) Collaboration I feel prepared for discharge/ 3.21 (.91) 3.10 (.91) referral to other community services after my loved one's discharge from the hospital/ outpatient department. (n = 1,872) The staff gave me honest 3.35 (.90) 3.27 (.90) information about the care that my loved one may need. (n = 1,969) I know whom to call after 1 get 3.14(1.04) 3.04(1.07) home if I need help or reassurance. (n = 1,974) When decisions are being made 3.10(1.03) 2.97 (1.03) about care, the statt includes me. (n = 1.963) I am being taught what I need to 3.06 0.03) 2.97(1.04) know about the care my loved one may need. (n = 1,934) I know the name of the physician/ 3.21 (.99) 3.07 (1.03) surgeon with primary responsibility for my loved one's care, (n = 1,970) I can easily understand the written 3.31 (.86) 3.20 (.91) material that has been given to me. (n = 1,940) The staff includes my family in the 3.12(1.02) 3.05(1.02) care of my loved one. (n = 1,881) I feel overwhelmed by the 2.13(1.09) 2.15 (1.07) information given to me about my loved one. (n = 1,935) Support Are all team members familiar with 3.06 (.92) 2.96 (.94) your loved one's special needs? (n = 1,912) All team members listen to my 3.11 (.96) 2.99 (.98) concerns. (n = 1,927) Whenever possible I get to see the 2.97 (.99) 2.85 (1.02) same team member for each area of care. (n = 1,906) The staff knows who my important 2.82(1.07) 2.74 0.09) support people are. (n = 1,869) The staff understand what my 2.97(1.01) 2.84(1.03) family and I are going through. (n = 1,898) Mean (Standard Deviation) Family/caregivers p-value aged [greater than or equal to] 60 (n = 1,264) Respect When I come to the hospital or 3.52 (.80) <.0001 outpatient clinic, I feel I am welcome as an informal caregiver to be there, (n = 2,051) Other members of my family are 3.53 (.81) .0001 welcome to attend with me at the hospital or outpatient clinic. (n = 1,940) I am able to be with my loved one 3.49 (.82) .0005 (the patient) through all assessments. (n = 2,033) I have the right to question 3.52 (.82) <.0001 medical and allied health recommendations about my loved one as much as I want. (n = 2,035) I feel like a visitor rather than a 2.43(1.23) .1252 caregiver when attending the hospital/outpatient clinic, (n = 1.973) Did you feel your loved one's 3.64 (.68) <.0001 assessments were carried out with privacy and confidentiality? (n = 2.041) Collaboration I feel prepared for discharge/ 3.29 (.90) <.0001 referral to other community services after my loved one's discharge from the hospital/ outpatient department. (n = 1,872) The staff gave me honest 3.41 (.90) .0006 information about the care that my loved one may need. (n = 1,969) I know whom to call after 1 get 3.22(1.01) .0001 home if I need help or reassurance. (n = 1,974) When decisions are being made 3.19(1.01) <.0001 about care, the statt includes me. (n = 1.963) I am being taught what I need to 3.13 (1.02) .0009 know about the care my loved one may need. (n = 1,934) I know the name of the physician/ 3.30 (.95) <.0001 surgeon with primary responsibility for my loved one's care, (n = 1,970) I can easily understand the written 3.38 (.81) <.0001 material that has been given to me. (n = 1,940) The staff includes my family in the 3.17(1.02) .0096 care of my loved one. (n = 1,881) I feel overwhelmed by the 2.11 (1.11) .3971 information given to me about my loved one. (n = 1,935) Support Are all team members familiar with 3.12 (.89) .0001 your loved one's special needs? (n = 1,912) All team members listen to my 3.20 (.93) <.0001 concerns. (n = 1,927) Whenever possible I get to see the 3.05 (.95) <.0001 same team member for each area of care. (n = 1,906) The staff knows who my important 2.88 (1.05) .0076 support people are. (n = 1,869) The staff understand what my 3.06 (.99) <.0001 family and I are going through. (n = 1,898) * Scale range 1.00-4.00. Table 3 Thematic Coding and Illustrative Example Quotes by Theme and Overall and by Age Group Theme/Subtheme # of Age (definition) Respondents Group Sample Quotes Collaboration 159 (Between caregivers and providers) Shared information All ages "... [Provider] has (Provider keeps caused me much caregiver informed anger. frustration, on patient health/ and anxiety with the care needs). care ... not provided for my loved one and refuses to listen to anything I try to tell about the man I have loved, lived with, and cared for in the past 21 years ..." <60 years "Overall, I feel like they do a pretty good job including me in sharing important information about what is going on. "I feel like I'm not included in all aspects of his plan of care and at times have been talked to and had information withheld ... I totally understand how busy the RN[']s are, but they need to take that extra minute to evaluate the caregiver's level of commitment/ understanding to their family members care." [greater "There are areas than or where information equal to] (tests, etc.) is not 60 years explained for sometimes months ... this leaves you worried ... even if we call, we may not hear for days, weeks, or not until next appointment." "During my husband's illnesses, I felt really enlightened about what was going on, what to expect, and what to do after surgery. So far I'm perfectly satisfied." "The VA hospital has always taken time and explained every step when my husband had his surgeries and took so much care of him during and after surgery." Shared decision All ages "VA needs to be more making (Caregiver patient with involvement in the caregiver or love[d] decision-making ones when explaining process for and include them in treatment decision-making." decisions). <60 years "All doctors were very nice and explained everything before it happened. Let us know how things were as tests[s] were performed. Answered all our questions." "I imagine because of privacy issues, family is not consulted with for patients with mental health concerns. I don't know the extent of treatment ... except what my spouse tells me." [greater "I have always been than or treated with respect equal to] and I feel 60 years comfortable asking questions and giving my opinion about decisions." "When [my loved one] is in surgery, it would [be] nice to be advised ... how all is going or did patient go to recovery room. Did you forget someone's waiting?" "The staff listen[s] and cares about my input. It gives me the confidence and help needed for 24 [hour] caregiving ..." Communication 266 (Between caregivers and providers) Interactions with All ages "Visits with my staff (Includes husband have been interaction with positive. The staff providers. is helpful and volunteers, front- friendly." line staff). "The staff are friendly and informative when it comes to my husband's needs ... learned from staff how I can better his health ..." "Had a very bad experience at the clinic in [VA facility]. Staff was rude and uncaring." <60 years "I'm glad the VA takes care of my husband; [it is a] great facility; thorough care and treatment; polite, professional staff/ employees." "Mostly see smiles from employees, but you also see a lot of indifference and treating the vets basically as a number!" [greater "... a positive than or experience. Staff equal to] and others are 60 years sincere, caring and knowledgeable." "I have much more confidence in the radiology department, where communication was excellent and the staff caring and compassionate." "The clerks are courteous enough, but some of the doctors are very short and seem to ignore the problem of the patient." Feeling excluded All ages "... the doctors (Caregiver not never want to hear informed; nor asked what I have to say for their feedback). ... When I try to ask questions they make me feel like I am bothering them ..." <60 years "He was admitted to the substance abuse ward to detox. I feel he got great help from the doctors and nurses, but they, not one time, advised me (the wife)." [greater "At first I was than or treated as a second equal to] class citizen, like 60 years I was not there, and they talk to my spouse and act like I was not there." Feeling welcomed All ages "I never had problem (Caregiver feels when I came with my welcomed as a husband to his participant in appointments patient care). everybody is always nice to me. I feel welcome." <60 years "All of the team members make feel welcomed every time I go." [greater "I have always had a than or good experience with equal to] the staff at the VA. 60 years I have been asked what they can do for me to be comfortable." Hospital climate 91 <60 years "Excellent caring atmosphere with caring compassionate team members!" "The patient care team members do really listen to patient's concerns, visits seem very rushed. I think the system is overwhelmed." [greater "They are so than or overworked; they can equal to] only give so much of 60 years their time." "I'm always impressed by the staffs friendly attitude and concerns for not only my loved one but for all patients and Veterans." Physical environment 78 <60 years "There needs to be more available seating, often there is standing room only for very long waits." "The layout of the hospital is a little confusing ..." "... clinic is too congested; they need to rearrange the waiting room ... it seems as though it is a safety hazard." "... the zig-zag through the hospital to make all [appointments] can be trying on me and hard on my dad." [greater "I can't believe you than or are doing away with equal to] valet parking." 60 years "It is a clean and attractive facility ..." "We need more parking areas, finding a space for parking is difficult to do." "The facility is physically pleasant and comfortable." Figure 2. Family-Centered Care Subscales (a,b): Perceptions of Older and Younger Family/Caregivers. (a) Graph displays subscales Respect, Collaboration and Support of the Family-Centered Care Survey. The scale range is 1.00-4.00, with higher scores indicating better perceptions of FCC; mean values are presented. Findings for regression models for each FCC sub-scale looking at the main effects of: age, race, and the Age X Race interaction term are presented (c, d, e) (to assess potential differences in older/younger participant's FCC perceptions). (b) Differences in mean values for the younger vs. older family/caregiver groups for Respect, Collaboration and Support are significant at the <0.0001 level. (c) Respect sub-scale: There was a main effect of age on participant's average reported perceptions of respect (B = -0.08, 95% CI:-0.11-.0.04,p < 0.0001), but there was no significant main effect of race, and the Age X Race interaction was not significant. This indicates that participants less than 60 years of age had lower perceptions of the FCC construct 'respect,' but perceptions did not differ by race (white vs. all other), nor were age effects dependent on racial category. (d) Collaboration sub-scale: There was a main effect of age on participant's average reported perceptions of collaboration (B = -0.08, 95% CI:-0.13-.0.04, p = 0.0003). There was also a significant main effect of race on participant's average reported perceptions of collaboration (B = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.003-0.14, p = 0.0422). The Age X Race interaction was not significant. This indicates that participants less than 60 years of age and those who were white had lower perceptions of the FCC construct 'collaboration,' but age effects were not dependent on racial category. (e) For the Support sub-scale: There was a main effect of age on participant's average reported perceptions of support (B = -0.11, 95% CI:-0.16-.0.06, p < 0.0001), but there was no significant main effect of race, and the Age X Race interaction was not significant. This indicates that participants less than 60 years of age had lower perceptions of the FCC construct 'support', but perceptions did not differ by race (white vs. all other), nor were age effects dependent on racial category. See the online article for the color version of this figure. Age <60 Age [greater than or equal to] 60 Respect (c) (n=2,058) 3.22 3.36 Collaboration (d) (n=1,981) 2.98 3.12 Support (e) (n=1,923) 2.88 3.06 Note: Table made from bar graph.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||La Vela, Sherri L.; Turcios, Stephanie; Malhiot, Alex; Etingen, Bella; Hill, Jennifer N.; Miskevics,|
|Publication:||Families, Systems & Health|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2016|
|Previous Article:||How knowledge of adverse childhood experiences can help pediatricians prevent mental health problems.|
|Next Article:||Fathers of children born with cleft lip and palate: impact of the timing of diagnosis.|