The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study

Background This project examines the organisation and delivery of health improvement activities by and within general practice and the primary health-care team. The project was designed to examine who delivers these interventions, where they are located, what approaches are developed in practices, how individual practices and the primary health-care team organise such public health activities, and how these contribute to health improvement. Our focus was on health promotion and ill-health prevention activities. Aims The aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the current extent of knowledge about the health improvement activities in general practice and the wider primary health-care team. The key objectives were to provide an overview of the range and type of health improvement activities, identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further empirical research. Our specific research objectives were to map the range and type of health improvement activity undertaken by general practice staff and the primary health-care team based within general practice; to scope the literature on health improvement in general practice or undertaken by health-care staff based in general practice and identify gaps in the evidence base; to synthesise the literature and identify effective approaches to the delivery and organisation of health improvement interventions in a general practice setting; and to identify the priority areas for research as defined by those working in general practice. Methods We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature. We followed a staged selection process involving reviews of titles and abstracts. This resulted in the identification of 1140 papers for data extraction, with 658 of these papers selected for inclusion in the review, of which 347 were included in the evidence synthesis. We also undertook 45 individual and two group interviews with primary health-care staff. Findings Many of the research studies reviewed had some details about the type, process or location, or who provided the intervention. Generally, however, little attention is paid in the literature to examining the impact of the organisational context on the way services are delivered or how this affects the effectiveness of health improvement interventions in general practice. We found that the focus of attention is mainly on individual prevention approaches, with practices engaging in both primary and secondary prevention. The range of activities suggests that general practitioners do not take a population approach but focus on individual patients. However, it is clear that many general practitioners see health promotion as an integral part of practice, whether as individual approaches to primary or secondary health improvement or as a practice-based approach to improving the health of their patients. Our key conclusion is that there is currently insufficient good evidence to support many of the health improvement interventions undertaken in general practice and primary care more widely. Future Research Future research on health improvement in general practice and by the primary health-care team needs to move beyond clinical research to include delivery systems and be conducted in a primary care setting. More research needs to examine areas where there are chronic disease burdens – cancer, dementia and other disabilities of old age. Reviews should be commissioned that examine the whole prevention pathway for health problems that are managed within primary care drawing together research from general practice, pharmacy, community engagement, etc

Primary health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children

This final report presents the findings from each of the phases of the Engaging Stakeholders in Identifying Priority Evidence-Practice Gaps and Strategies for Improvement in Primary Health Care (ESP) Project. This report is designed for people working in a range of roles including national and jurisdictional policy makers, managers, community-controlled organisations and government health authorities, peak bodies, clinical leaders, researchers, primary health care staff and continuous quality improvement (CQI) practitioners who may have an interest in the interpretation and use of aggregated CQI data to drive decision making. Stakeholders across services and systems that deliver Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care (PHC) engaged in a process to analyse and interpret national continuous quality improvement (CQI) data from 132 health centres. We used a consensus process to identify priority evidence-practice gaps in child health care, based on these data. Stakeholders drew on their knowledge and experience working in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC to identify barriers and enablers to addressing the priority evidence- practice gaps, and to suggest strategies to overcome barriers and strengthen enablers to addressing the priority evidence-practice gaps. Important messages emerge from these findings

Performance indicators for primary care groups; an evidence-based approach

The NHS Executive and Department of Health have proposed a wide range of performance indicators many of which are applicable to future primary care groups Some of these indicators reflect access and efficiency, but few of the effectiveness indicators are based on primary care interventions for which there is evidence that increased uptake results in improved health outcomes We present a method to identify important primary care interventions of proved efficacy and suggest performance indicators that could monitor their use Our evidence based approach may be a complementary way of identifying areas for performance indicators to those proposed by the NHS Executive and Department of Health Our suggested indicators are more likely to help turn evidence into everyday practice and to have an impact on the population's healt

Global implications of evidence ‘biased’ practice: management of the third stage of labour

Increasing attention is being paid to the promotion of clinical and cost-effective care informed by the highest level of evidence to ensure health outcomes are optimised and access to health care is equitable. There are obvious advantages to these approaches, including increased awareness of the importance of rigorous methodology when conducting primary and secondary research, utilising methods which are systematic, robust, transparent and explicit. Evidence-based practice was introduced to replace the traditional approach of ‘this is how we have always done it’ as an underpinning for clinical practice. Ironically, however, the transition has not been straightforward and there have been criticisms of the way ‘evidence’ to support some areas of practice is perceived and applied in clinical settings. Anecdotally and based on personal experience, there are two main criticisms: 1. Acceptance of evidence without critique: Too much faith (or blind faith) in the process by which ‘evidence’ (authoritative or systematic) is produced. 2. Lack of holistic insight in the application of evidence: Employing ‘one size fits all’ policies ignoring individual needs for required care in conveyor-like processed care provision. To explore these criticisms, the example of management of the third stage of labour is used.</p

Health assessment of elderly patients

BACKGROUND Comprehensive health assessment of the elderly in primary care will become a more important element of general practice as population aging proceeds and evidence of efficacy emerges. OBJECTIVE This article describes approaches to provision of health assessment in primary care based on the best available evidence. DISCUSSION Current best practice includes the use of structured health assessment protocols, an integrated multidisciplinary approach, targeting patient groups with intermediate levels of disability and handicap, in-home assessments and carefully structured follow up mechanisms.Len C Gray, Jonathan W Newbur

PELICAN: a quality of life instrument for childhood asthma: Study Protocol of two Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary and Specialized Care in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND Asthma is one of the major chronic health problems in children in the Netherlands. The Pelican is a paediatric asthma-related quality of life instrument for children with asthma from 6-11 years old, which is suitable for clinical practice in primary and specialized care. Based on this instrument, we developed a self-management treatment to improve asthma-related quality of life. The Pelican intervention will be investigated in different health care settings. Results of intervention studies are often extrapolated to other health care settings than originally investigated. Because of differences in organization, disease severity, patient characteristics and care provision between health care settings, extrapolating research results could lead to unnecessary health costs without the desired health care achievements. Therefore, interventions have to be investigated in different health care settings when possible. This study is an example of an intervention study in different health care settings. In this article, we will present the study protocol of the Pelican study in primary and specialized care. METHOD/DESIGN This study consists of two randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of the Pelican intervention in primary and specialized care. The trial in primary care is a multilevel design with 170 children with asthma in 16 general practices. All children in one general practices are allocated to the same treatment group. The trial in specialized care is a multicentre trial with 100 children with asthma. Children in one outpatient clinic are randomly allocated to the intervention or usual care group. In both trials, children will visit the care provider four times during a follow-up of nine months. This study is registered and ethically approved. DISCUSSION This article describes the study protocol of the Pelican study in different health care settings. If the Pelican intervention proves to be effective and efficient, implementation in primary and specialized care for paediatric asthma in the Netherlands will be recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study is registered by clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01109745).This trial is funded by grants of the Dutch Asthma Foundation (NAF 3.4.07.043), fonds NutsOhra (0802–74), Nijmegen Centre for Evidence Based Practice (NCEBP) and Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre

Improved delivery of cardiovascular care (IDOCC) through outreach facilitation: study protocol and implementation details of a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care

Abstract Background There is a need to find innovative approaches for translating best practices for chronic disease care into daily primary care practice routines. Primary care plays a crucial role in the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease. There is, however, a substantive care gap, and many challenges exist in implementing evidence-based care. The Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project is a pragmatic trial designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care practices using practice outreach facilitation. Methods The IDOCC project is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized control trial in which Practice Outreach Facilitators work with primary care practices to improve cardiovascular disease prevention and management for patients at highest risk. Primary care practices in a large health region in Eastern Ontario, Canada, were eligible to participate. The intervention consists of regular monthly meetings with the Practice Outreach Facilitator over a one- to two-year period. Starting with audit and feedback, consensus building, and goal setting, the practices are supported in changing practice behavior by incorporating chronic care model elements. These elements include (a) evidence-based decision support for providers, (b) delivery system redesign for practices, (c) enhanced self-management support tools provided to practices to help them engage patients, and (d) increased community resource linkages for practices to enhance referral of patients. The primary outcome is a composite score measured at the level of the patient to represent each practice's adherence to evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular care. Qualitative analysis of the Practice Outreach Facilitators' written narratives of their ongoing practice interactions will be done. These textual analyses will add further insight into understanding critical factors impacting project implementation. Discussion This pragmatic, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with both quantitative and process evaluations demonstrates innovative methods of implementing large-scale quality improvement and evidence-based approaches to care delivery. This is the first Canadian study to examine the impact of a large-scale multifaceted cardiovascular quality-improvement program in primary care. It is anticipated that through the evaluation of IDOCC, we will demonstrate an effective, practical, and sustainable means of improving the cardiovascular health of patients across Canada. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0057480

Integrating Behavioral Health & Primary Care in New Hampshire: A Path Forward to Sustainable Practice & Payment Transformation

New Hampshire residents face challenges with behavioral and physical health conditions and the interplay between them. National studies show the costs and the burden of illness from behavioral health conditions and co-occurring chronic health conditions that are not adequately treated in either primary care or behavioral health settings. Bringing primary health and behavioral health care together in integrated care settings can improve outcomes for both behavioral and physical health conditions. Primary care integrated behavioral health works in conjunction with specialty behavioral health providers, expanding capacity, improving access, and jointly managing the care of patients with higher levels of acuity In its work to improve the health of NH residents and create effective and cost-effective systems of care, the NH Citizens Health Initiative (Initiative) created the NH Behavioral Health Integration Learning Collaborative (BHI Learning Collaborative) in November of 2015, as a project of its Accountable Care Learning Network (NHACLN). Bringing together more than 60 organizations, including providers of all types and sizes, all of the state’s community mental health centers, all of the major private and public insurers, and government and other stakeholders, the BHI Learning Collaborative built on earlier work of a NHACLN Workgroup focused on improving care for depression and co-occurring chronic illness. The BHI Learning Collaborative design is based on the core NHACLN philosophy of “shared data and shared learning” and the importance of transparency and open conversation across all stakeholder groups. The first year of the BHI Learning Collaborative programming included shared learning on evidence-based practice for integrated behavioral health in primary care, shared data from the NH Comprehensive Healthcare Information System (NHCHIS), and work to develop sustainable payment models to replace inadequate Fee-for-Service (FFS) revenues. Provider members joined either a Project Implementation Track working on quality improvement projects to improve their levels of integration or a Listen and Learn Track for those just learning about Behavioral Health Integration (BHI). Providers in the Project Implementation Track completed a self-assessment of levels of BHI in their practice settings and committed to submit EHR-based clinical process and outcomes data to track performance on specified measures. All providers received access to unblinded NHACLN Primary Care and Behavioral Health attributed claims data from the NHCHIS for provider organizations in the NH BHI Learning Collaborative. Following up on prior work focused on developing a sustainable model for integrating care for depression and co-occurring chronic illness in primary care settings, the BHI Learning Collaborative engaged consulting experts and participants in understanding challenges in Health Information Technology and Exchange (HIT/HIE), privacy and confidentiality, and workforce adequacy. The BHI Learning Collaborative identified a sustainable payment model for integrated care of depression in primary care. In the process of vetting the payment model, the BHI Learning Collaborative also identified and explored challenges in payment for Substance Use Disorder Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). New Hampshire’s residents will benefit from a health care system where primary care and behavioral health are integrated to support the care of the whole person. New Hampshire’s current opiate epidemic accentuates the need for better screening for behavioral health issues, prevention, and treatment referral integrated into primary care. New Hampshire providers and payers are poised to move towards greater integration of behavioral health and primary care and the Initiative looks forward to continuing to support progress in supporting a path to sustainable integrated behavioral and primary care

Testing Integrated Primary Care and Public Health Models for Prevention Delivery

Improving the delivery of evidence-tested prevention interventions to populations at greatest risk requires strong coordination between primary care providers and public health organizations. This presentation reviews current research on models for integrated delivery of primary care and public health services, and identifies emerging research needs and opportunities. Of particular interest are the roles that practice-based research networks (PBRNs) can play in building this evidence

Paediatric Obesity Research in Early Childhood and the Primary Care Setting: The TARGet Kids! Research Network

Primary paediatric health care is the foundation for preventative child health. In light of the recent obesity epidemic, paediatricians find themselves at the frontline of identification and management of childhood obesity. However, it is well recognized that evidence based approaches to obesity prevention and subsequent translation of this evidence into practice are critically needed. This paper explores the role of primary care in obesity prevention and introduces a novel application and development of a primary care research network in Canada—TARGet Kids!—to develop and translate an evidence-base on effective screening and prevention of childhood obesity