Preparation for cardiac procedures: identifying gaps between outpatients’ views and experiences of patient-centred care

Background To examine the delivery of patient-centred care and identify any gaps in care perceived as essential by patients; this study examined outpatients’: 1) views on what characterises essential care and 2) experiences of care received, in relation to cardiac catheterisation and subsequent cardiovascular procedures. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken. Surveys were posted to outpatients who had undergone elective cardiac catheterisation in the prior six months at an Australian tertiary public hospital. Participants completed a 65-item survey to determine: a) aspects of care they perceive as essential for a healthcare team to provide to patients receiving care for a cardiac condition (Important Care Survey); or b) their actual care received (Actual Care Survey). Numbers and percentages were used to calculate the most frequently identified essential care items by patients; and the experiences of care received. Items rated as either ‘Essential’ or ‘Very important’ by at least 80% of participants were determined, reflecting patient endorsement of the importance of the component of care. A gap in patient-centred care was identified as being any item that was endorsed as essential/very important by 80% or more of participants but reported as received by less than 80% of participants. Results Of 582 eligible patients, 264 (45%) returned a completed survey. 43/65 items were endorsed by over 80% of participants as essential/very important. Of those, for 22 items, less than 80% of respondents reported the care as received. Gaps were identified in relation to GP consultation (3 items), preparation (4 items), having the procedure (2 items), follow-up care (1 item), subsequent decision making for treatment (4 items), prognosis (6 items) and post-treatment follow-up (1 item). Conclusions Areas were identified where actual care fell short of patients’ perceptions of essential care, particularly general practitioner involvement, the referral process and information on patient prognosis. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Trial N/A. This study as not a clinical trial. ### Funding Statement This project was supported by funding from the Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle; and infrastructure funding from the Hunter Medical Research Institute. AL Sverdlov is supported by the Future Leader Fellowship from the National Heart Foundation of Australia (Award ID 106025). ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Not Applicable The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This research was approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Not Applicable I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Not Applicable I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Not Applicable Materials for this study may be available by emailing the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions. Additional use of or access to the data requires that the research team submit a request for variation of ethics approval.