NURS FPX 8008 Assessment 1 Analyzing Person-Centered Care with Scientific and Theoretical Evidence

Analyzing Person-Centered Care with Scientific and Theoretical Evidence

Person-centered care (PCC) is a revolution in healthcare delivery whereby the needs, preferences, and experiences of the individual patient are put first. The theoretical frameworks provide solid grounds for the comprehension and application of the PCC interventions (McCance and McCormack, 2025). The evidence-based model is an inherent transformation of the way healthcare is rendered to attain the best patient outcomes and significant care experiences. The essence of the evaluation is to be able to analyze PCC with the help of evidence-based research and theoretical frameworks in which teamwork is critical.

Identified Articles for Person-Centered Care

The quantitative study provides the required information to understand the quantifiable impacts of PCC on patient outcomes in different health institutions. Four quantitative investigations demonstrated how the implementation of PCC interventions brings about statistically significant results on a series of health outcomes and patient experiences. A quasi-experimental study by Rooddehghan et al. (2023) was done on 140 multiple sclerosis patients, and the authors concluded that there was a significant impact of self-care education programs on the scores of quality of life, and a reduction in the impact of fatigue based on the principles of patient- and family-centered education.

In a quasi-experimental research study, the researchers did attempt to implement the patient engagement framework on 116 older patients, and the fall prevention framework achieved a result of falls decreased to 3-0 among the intervention group and significant knowledge-attitude-practice and modified fall efficacy scale scores (p < 0.05) in line with research. Aschmann et al. (2020) come up with very stratified quantitative benefit harm measurements where they engage other stakeholders in the process and demonstrate the changes in patient characteristics and preferences on treatment outcomes.

The study by Waweru et al. (2020) is cross-sectional and included 300 patients, using normalized scores (1-100 scale) to conduct an analysis of five dimensions of patient-centered care and conclude that the exploration of the health experience was significantly correlated with patient satisfaction. The total of the findings of the above research was that patient enablement was less implicated in understanding the whole person and in decision-making processes that were shared. The totality of the quantitative results is able to clarify the concept that PCCE interventions have the potential to have quantifiable impacts on patient outcomes and patient satisfaction.

The four qualitative studies were able to offer extensive information about the definition and experience of PCC in various healthcare settings and found a common theme of relational focus, joint decision-making, and individualization. Yousef et al. (2020) found that integrated care environments had four major themes, namely: caring about me, collaborating with me, helping me understand and self-manage my care, and personalizing care to meet my needs, and that quality relational interactions with teams of healthcare providers were fundamental in influencing patient experiences.

The modular service architecture used by Peters et al. (2020) showed that PCC presupposes the transition from the medical outcomes with the provider at the center to the functional outcomes and general well-being of the patient. Marchand et al. (2020) found that establishing relationship foundations between healthcare providers and patients by using the three components of opening up, being a part of care, and meeting me where I am led to a ground breaking, individualized care in an opioid treatment facility.

Basing their findings on four dialectical tensions typical of providers going through transitioning between traditional medical models, such as autonomy versus compliance, strengths versus symptoms, freedom versus structure, and individualized versus one-size-fits-all, Doherty et al. (2020) described these tensions. The research articles all indicate that PCC results rely on the core of changing the relationships in healthcare to truly address the specific views of patients.

Two Nursing Theories

Nursing theories are structured to offer bases for both quantitative and qualitative components of patient-centered care. The nursing theory on self-care deficit, coined by Orem, is quite similar to the quantitative research due to its focus on self-care agency and effects of therapeutic intervention, as well as evaluation of the capacity of the patients to take care of their own health care requirements. Findings like Rooddehghan et al. (2023) showed evidence of major positive effects on the quality of life and fatigue using structured self-care education, which was in line with Orem who asserted that guided interventions would increase patient autonomy.

On the same note, patient engagement strategies were reported to deliver measurable knowledge, self-efficacy, and fall-prevention behavior gains by Guo et al. (2022). The results demonstrate the fact that Orem believes that it is possible to objectively track and reinforce patient progress and do it by nurse-led intervention. Quantitative scoring systems and benefit-harm assessments were employed in other studies, such as Aschmann et al. (2020) and Waweru et al. (2020), to determine the patient preferences and performance based on the patient-centered care dimensions.

These practices are in line with the step-by-step method that Orem uses to determine therapeutic outcomes. Hence, quantitative models based on the theory suggested by Orem provide sufficient proof that patient-centered care is effective in enhancing clinical and functional outcomes.

The theory of human caring by Jean Watson also supports qualitative research because it focuses on the meaning, dignity, and relational depth of the caring experience. Watson underlines the significance of therapeutic relations, understanding, and the common human experience of the healing process. Yousef et al. (2020) discovered that patients appreciated the importance of understanding them and treating them as individuals, which is the focus of Watson’s presence and mutual respect.

The article by Marchand et al. (2020) defined emotional trust established by the patient in the context of being able to share their personal difficulties, which is exemplified by the processes of relationship and healing. Peters et al. (2020) demonstrated that patients have their own definition of well-being and care on a personal level and corroborate the idea of Watson, which is the importance of recognizing individual meaning.

The complexity of human caring interactions was revealed by Doherty et al. (2020) as the authors emphasized the internal tension that the provider undergoes during the change to more relational methods of care. The qualitative models that are based on the Watson theory help in expressing the richness of emotional and relationship experience that cannot be fully described by the data alone.

Synopsis of Studies

The field of healthcare research has a variety of methodologies for researching the effectiveness and implementation of patient-centered care in different clinical environments. Four quantitative studies indicated quantifiable results with organized interventions and statistical tests. In a quasi-experimental study by Rooddehghan et al. (2023), 140 multiple sclerosis patients participated in comparing patient-centered and family-centered self-care education programs, and the results achieved significant quality of life improvements at (P < 0.001) levels. Guo et al. (2022) adopted the quasi-experimental design based on the patient engagement framework in 116 older patients and proved that falls are totally eliminated.

Aschmann et al. (2020) created an extremely stratified quantitative benefit-harm analysis involving various stakeholders. Waweru et al. (2020) used a cross-sectional study that included 300 patients and assessed five dimensions of patient-centered care on normalized measurements. The quantitative studies offer solid statistical data on patient-centered care interventions.

Qualitative research methodologies provide supplementary information on the experiences and senses that patients have towards healthcare experiences. Four qualitative studies examined the patient perspective based on in-depth interviews and thematic analyses. Yousef et al. (2020) used grounded theory in the context of integrated care in 12 patients and suggested the description of four meaningful themes, including caring about me and personalizing care.

Marchand et al. (2020) conducted the research based on the constructivist grounded theory and tested the main concepts of making things open and being involved in care among 30 individuals with injectable opioid therapy. Peters et al. (2020), in a multiple case study that included 74 respondents, found the differences in person-centered modular service architecture in the perceptions of professionals and patients. Doherty et al. (2020) located the focus group responses of mental health professionals (N=104) and discovered dialectical tensions throughout the transition to patient-centered care. The qualitative research illuminated the complex human issues in the process of enacting patient-centered care.

Literature Synthesis

Quantitative research works show quantifiable outcomes and trends of the effectiveness of PCC in various clinical settings. The theme of quality-of-life improvement seems to have been observed as one of the key ones, with Rooddehghan et al. (2023) stating that the quality-of-life scores in multiple sclerosis patients increased during post-intervention stages with statistically significant results (p < .001). Likewise, the safety improvement also becomes a key result as it is demonstrated in Guo et al. (2022), where the patient-engagement strategies were linked to the absence of fall incidents and the growth of patient knowledge and self-efficacy.

On the same note, patient empowerment and shared decision-making effectiveness are highlighted in Aschmann et al. (2020), where patient-specific benefit-harm decisions were supported by patient-friendly benefit-harm assessments to promote patient-centered clinical decisions. Moreover, Waweru et al. (2020) name satisfaction and enablement as the specific outcomes in association with particular PCC elements. The areas of the quantitative findings, taken together, provide strong, quantifiable evidence that PCC can be used as a resource in enhancing clinical, safety, and experiential outcomes.

Experience and relationship aspects of person-centered care are highlighted in qualitative research studies. Quality of therapeutic relationships is another theme that Youssef et al. (2020) refer to, saying that caring about me and partnership are the essential elements of pleasant patient experiences in integrated care environments. Equally, Marchand et al. (2020) emphasize mutual trust and understanding and determined that shared openness are important element of significance in meaningful casting, especially when it comes to a substance use treatment setting.

Similarly, individualized care delivery also turns out to be a common theme; Peters et al. (2020) have provided information regarding how service frameworks that consider the well-being of the whole person, in addition to purely biomedical outcomes, can lead to more significant patient engagement. In comparison, Doherty et al. (2020) explained the operational difficulties in terms of the autonomy-clinical compliance balancing, which means that the adaptive provider should approach the individualized care. All the identified qualitative findings are related to the relational focus and emotional background that characterizes patient experience and involvement in person-centered care.

• Significance of Team Collaboration

The identified outcome themes demonstrate that effective PCC implementation requires great teamwork. To enhance quality of life and patient safety, multidisciplinary teams are needed to coordinate care that will address the needs of patients and reduce adverse outcomes (Taberna, 2020). In shared decision-making, additional collaborative models are required to ensure that teammates work collectively to either help patients gain empowerment and develop a cohesive care plan (Montori et al., 2022). The results of studies also highlight the outcome themes of the most successful implementation of PCC as an integrated and coordinated work of teams.

Conclusion

The literature on PCC demonstrates a good evidence of the success in healthcare settings, both in quantitative and qualitative studies. The results are always consistent in that there is an enhancement in the quality of life, improvement of therapeutic relationships, and empowerment of the patients. These findings suggest that effective PCC involves a collaborative effort on the part of teams that are responsive to both quantifiable clinical outcomes and positive patient experiences. Combined theoretical outlooks provide a strong paradigm for how to implement. The evidence-based outcome themes may be prioritized to benefit the healthcare improvement initiatives in the future.

Explore Next Assessment: NURS FPX 8008 Assessment 2

Struggling with NURS FPX 8008 Assessment 1? Tutors Academy offers expert, step-by-step guidance to boost grades fast and succeed confidently.