|
Affiliation
|
Center for Healthcare Innovation and Policy Research, George Washington University , Washington, District of Columbia, USA and Departments of Emergency Medicine and Health Policy, George Washington University , Washington, District of Columbia, USA. |
|
Abstract
|
PURPOSE The purpose of this paper is to describe the use of group concept mapping (GCM) as a tool for developing a conceptual model of an episode of acute, unscheduled care from illness or injury to outcomes such as recovery, death and chronic illness.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH After generating a literature review drafting an initial conceptual model, GCM software (CS Global MAX(TM)) is used to organize and identify strengths and directionality between concepts generated through feedback about the model from several stakeholder groups: acute care and non-acute care providers, patients, payers and policymakers. Through online and in-person population-specific focus groups, the GCM approach seeks feedback, assigned relationships and articulated priorities from participants to produce an output map that described overarching concepts and relationships within and across subsamples.
FINDINGS A clustered concept map made up of relational data points that produced a taxonomy of feedback was used to update the model for use in soliciting additional feedback from two technical expert panels (TEPs), and finally, a public comment exercise was performed. The results were a stakeholder-informed improved model for an acute care episode, identified factors that influence process and outcomes, and policy recommendations, which were delivered to the Department of Health and Human Services's (DHHS) Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Practical implications This study provides an example of the value of cross-population multi-stakeholder input to increase voice in shared problem health stakeholder groups.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE This paper provides GCM results and a visual analysis of the relational characteristics both within and across sub-populations involved in the study. It also provides an assessment of observational key factors supporting how different stakeholder voices can be integrated to inform model development and policy recommendations.
Language: en |