Priority Setting Group Discussion Results

September 24, 2015

Priority setting groups help us understand outcomes important to patients’ experiences

During this past spring and summer, we met with small groups of patients who received care from Access or Group Health Cooperative (GHC) to get feedback on their experiences and our findings from the video survey we released last year. In these groups, we asked them to describe the outcomes they thought were important based on their experience(s) with seeing a Behavioral Health Consultant. They then ranked outcome statements according to importance. These statements were created by the research team using a summary of video survey responses.

What patients said

We heard many stories from patients who suffer from anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. Some participants first experienced mental health care in an integrated visit, while others had been seeking mental health care for many years. An example from someone who had first experienced mental health care during an integrated visit was that this occurred when they revealed they had trouble sleeping to their doctor. After further questioning, the doctor suggested the patient see a behavioral health consultant to discuss this further and work on different strategies to improve the situation. For those who had already been receiving mental health care, seeing a behavioral health consultant provided access for them to receive care when it may not have been available. They described seeing a behavioral health consultant while they waited for an appointment with a psychiatrist who was not available for several months. 

What’s most important when receiving mental health care at a primary care clinic

Prioritization groups only included those who had a relationship with a behavioral health provider. Each group ranked statements in two themes out of four topics: Well-being, Care Experience, Access/Services, and Dignity. Out of a list of statements, participants first chose three statements that they considered personally most important to them. They then put dots by these statements on a board that was viewable to the whole group. Participants discussed the outcome statements that received the most and least votes.

Participants from both organizations, Access and GHC, chose similar statements as being most important. When a category was diverse with multiple statements receiving an equal number of votes – this resulted in more than three important statements. The outcomes ranked highest by participants in each category are listed below:

Next steps 

We will be using these statements as outcomes in a comparative effectiveness grant to PCORI. Stay tuned for updates!

 

Add new comment