Cath Lab Digest

Login to Download
PDF version

  Healthcare initiatives are becoming increasingly patient-centered in focus. One such effort in the past year specifically applies the concept to research. Nurse specialists should be aware of this initiative, because it represents potential opportunities for research funding. The initiative, the newly launched Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), seeks to help people make informed healthcare decisions (and improve healthcare delivery and outcomes) by producing and promoting high-integrity, evidence-based information that comes from research guided by patients, caregivers, and the broader healthcare community. The new institute is governed by a 21-member Board of Governors —19 are appointed by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), and two are the Directors of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or their designees. By early December 2011, the Board of Governors had received 856 applications for its Pilot Projects Grants Program.¹

  The call for patient-centeredness goes beyond the nobility of research imperatives. Another initiative involves evidence-based healthcare, embraced by public and private healthcare stakeholders as a solution to rising healthcare costs, poor quality, and safety concerns, but it has taken nearly 5 years for the legitimacy and importance of patient-centeredness to be acknowledged. Since 2006, the National Association For Continence (NAFC), along with nearly 50 other patient advocacy organizations across a wide variety of diseases and conditions, has promoted the following principles as core values²:
    • Evidence-based healthcare should support individualized care and not dictate “one-size-fits-all” treatment;

    • Each consumer should be treated individually based on needs, health status, history, and other individual factors;

    • Any process developed for reviewing scientific evidence and translating those findings for decision makers should be clearly stated, flexible in nature, and include consumer representation;

    • Acceptable research evidence should not be limited to randomized clinical studies. All types of research should be incorporated to ensure all racial/ethnic groups are included;

    • Safety and finding the right treatment for the individual should be top goals of evidence-based healthcare;

    • Evidence should support physician and consumer decision-making rather than dictate treatment.

  As healthcare costs continue to spiral upward, its drivers become more concrete. Primary care providers are beginning to witness their compensation structure tied, at least in part, to patient satisfaction scores.³ Moreover, a growing momentum is attempting to shift a greater share of healthcare costs and responsibility for self-care onto the patient, as the escalating burden on public and private payors becomes unsustainable. Consequently, we are hearing more about shared decision-making, because it has dual objectives from a payor’s point of view. Although the move of payors and providers toward patient-centeredness may be somewhat selfish, greater patient (and caregiver) engagement is of supreme importance to one’s own protection and safety.

  Too many patients currently still must confront surgical outcomes that fail to meet their expectations for treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP), dissuading others by word-of-mouth from seeking diagnosis, much less treatment. Fragmentation, competition, and disagreement among providers as to standard protocols for treatment of SUI and POP still remain.