Link

Brief description of case

Reference

🔶 Case 1

Mapping of an individual patient journey – kidney cancer – where the disease was incidentally discovered

Method 2

🔶 Case 2

Mapping of a patient pathway in specialist care – kidney cancer – from a urology department

Method 3

🔶 Case 3

Mapping of patient pathway – kidney cancer – with expert evaluation (Finland)

Method 3

🔶 Case 4

Mapping of patient pathway – MS – and statistical analysis of a digital care pathway (Finland)

Method 3

🔶 Case 5

Survey about patient pathways – cross-disease – with healthcare professionals (Finland)

–

🔶 Case 6

Investigating critical incidents (positive and negative) as seen from the patients’ perspectives – a study with cancer patients

Method 1

🔶 Case 7

Mapping of an individual patient journey – kidney cancer – followed over 11 months, including referral delays and surgery

Method 2

🔶 Case 8

Mapping of an individual patient journey – MS – followed over five months, including GP contact, specialist referrals, treatment, and follow-up.

Method 2

🔶 Case 9

Mapping and modeling of patient pathway – MS – transition from primary to specialist care

Method 7

🔶 Case 10

Mapping and modeling of patient pathways – MS – rehabilitation care including referral

Method 7

🔶 Case 11

Interview study focusing on clinicians’ perspectives on fragmented, cross-level coordination in real-world practice in neurology

Method 8

🔶 Case 12

Study of patient pathways in neurology care, using a service-dominant logic perspective

Method 2,3,8

Link

Brief description of method

Ref.

🔷 Method 1

Critical Incident Technique captures positive and negative patient experiences, engaging patients via digital workshops. Includes guidelines for conducting the workshop, analysing and categorization of incidents.

Case 6

🔷 Method 2

Patient Journey Analysis maps and models individual experiences over extended periods. Guidelines and materials for the start interview, diary study, and debriefing interview are included.

Case 1, Case 7, Case 8

🔷 Method 3

Mapping and modeling of pathways (kidney cancer) working iteratively with healthcare professionals to examine interactions with actors across care settings. The pathway enables comparison with actual patient journeys to identify gaps and inefficiencies.

Case 2, Case 3

🔷 Method 4

Patient journey disruptions provide a systematic way to describe and analyze situations where coordination, information flow, or support fails. The method helps identify obstacles to integrated care.

–

🔷 Method 5

Comprehensive survey targeting patients focusing on how they experience coordination and care integration across services. The survey provides system-level insight into strengths and gaps in integrated care.

–

🔷 Method 6

Expert evaluation – extending CJML. This method evaluates pathways through iterative expert assessment using kidney cancer care, to identify limitations and propose extensions to the language.

Case 3

🔷 Method 7

Mapping and modeling of MS pathways working iteratively with healthcare professionals to examine interactions with actors across care settings. The pathway enables comparison with actual patient journeys to identify gaps and inefficiencies.

Case 9, Case 10

🔷 Method 8

Validated interview guide adapts CPSET into a qualitative interview guide to study how healthcare professionals describe and organize patient pathways across levels of care.

Case 11

🔷 Method 9

Patient-reported classification of healthcare actors. This method draws on patient journey analyses to identify and classify actors, as patients describe them. A classification framework of eleven categories is provided.

Case 1, Case 7, Case 8

🔷 Method 10

Interview guide to explore how healthcare professionals understand and use patient pathways in practice, focusing on definitions, coordination challenges, and standardisation across roles and levels of care.

–