Enhancing quality of life among epilepsy surgery patients: Interlinking multiple social and relational determinants

2019 Elsevier Inc. Background: Achieving seizure control through resective brain surgery is a major predictor of improved quality of life (QOL) among people with refractory (drug-resistant) epilepsy. Nevertheless, QOL is a comprehensive and dynamic construct, consisting of broad dimensions such as physical health, psychosocial well-being, level of independence, social relationships, and beyond. This study highlights the interlinkage and complementarity of these diverse dimensions, and how in practice, patients, clinicians, and others in a social support system can actively promote QOL among surgery patients. Method: Twenty-one qualitative in-depth interviews with patients with refractory epilepsy who are either undergoing presurgical assessment or postsurgery follow-up were conducted, to consider their perspective on QOL in relation to their experience of illness and surgical treatment. Data were thematically analyzed, resulting in three key thematic findings. Results: (1) A myriad of QOL dimensions are highly interrelated and interdependent with mutual \u27spin-off\u27 effects: Uncontrolled seizures impacted beyond physical and cognitive health, disrupting important social identities such as being successful parents, spouses, and career professionals. The desire for good clinical outcomes from surgery was justified against the need to mitigate these social and personal concerns. (2) In postsurgery care, there were complementary effects of clinical interventions and social factors on patients\u27 QOL. Psychosocial well-being was supported by a combination of improved physical health, self-confidence, psychological interventions, and social support from employers and educators who were sensitive to patients\u27 specialized needs. (3) Engaging in education, employment, and government services influenced not only socioeconomic well-being, but also a sense of social inclusion. Advocacy made on behalf of patients by clinicians and family members has helped to better manage patients\u27 eligibility for social services provision. Conclusion: Quality of life is achieved through a comprehensive and interactive social process, and not simply an outcome measure of clinical treatment. The responses and interactions of many others within the patients\u27 life and treatment process, including family members, clinicians, and social service workers, can culminate to influence QOL, highlighting the importance of a relational and social determinants perspective in patient care

Implementing large-system, value-based healthcare initiatives: a realist study protocol for seven natural experiments

Introduction Value-based healthcare delivery models have emerged to address the unprecedented pressure on long-term health system performance and sustainability and to respond to the changing needs and expectations of patients. Implementing and scaling the benefits from these care delivery models to achieve large-system transformation are challenging and require consideration of complexity and context. Realist studies enable researchers to explore factors beyond ‘what works’ towards more nuanced understanding of ‘what tends to work for whom under which circumstances’. This research proposes a realist study of the implementation approach for seven large-system, value-based healthcare initiatives in New South Wales, Australia, to elucidate how different implementation strategies and processes stimulate the uptake, adoption, fidelity and adherence of initiatives to achieve sustainable impacts across a variety of contexts.Methods and analysis This exploratory, sequential, mixed methods realist study followed RAMESES II (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) reporting standards for realist studies. Stage 1 will formulate initial programme theories from review of existing literature, analysis of programme documents and qualitative interviews with programme designers, implementation support staff and evaluators. Stage 2 envisages testing and refining these hypothesised programme theories through qualitative interviews with local hospital network staff running initiatives, and analyses of quantitative data from the programme evaluation, hospital administrative systems and an implementation outcome survey. Stage 3 proposes to produce generalisable middle-range theories by synthesising data from context–mechanism–outcome configurations across initiatives. Qualitative data will be analysed retroductively and quantitative data will be analysed to identify relationships between the implementation strategies and processes, and implementation and programme outcomes. Mixed methods triangulation will be performed.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by Macquarie University (Project ID 23816) and Hunter New England (Project ID 2020/ETH02186) Human Research Ethics Committees. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be fed back to partner organisations and roundtable discussions with other health jurisdictions will be held, to share learnings

Guiding principles for effective collaborative implementation strategies for multisite hospital improvement initiatives: a mixed-method realist evaluation of collaborative strategies used in four multisite initiatives at public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia

Objective Large-scale, multisite hospital improvement initiatives can advance high-quality care for patients. Implementation support is key to adoption of change in this context. Strategies that foster collaboration within local teams, across sites and between initiative developers and users are important. However not all implementation strategies are successful in all settings, sometimes realising poor or unintended outcomes. Our objective here is to develop guiding principles for effective collaborative implementation strategies for multi-site hospital initiatives.Design Mixed-method realist evaluation. Realist studies aim to examine the underlying theories that explain differing outcomes, identifying mechanisms and contextual factors that may trigger them.Setting We report on collaborative strategies used in four multi-site initiatives conducted in all public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia (n>100).Participants Using an iterative process, information was gathered on collaborative implementation strategies used, then initial programme theories hypothesised to underlie the strategies’ outcomes were surfaced using a realist dialogic approach. A realist interview schedule was developed to elicit evidence for the posited initial programme theories. Fourteen participants from 20 key informants invited participated. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, transcribed and analysed. From these data, guiding principles of fostering collaboration were developed.Results Six guiding principles were distilled: (1) structure opportunities for collaboration across sites; (2) facilitate meetings to foster learning and problem-solving across sites; (3) broker useful long-term relationships; (4) enable support agencies to assist implementers by giving legitimacy to their efforts in the eyes of senior management; (5) consider investment in collaboration as effective well beyond the current projects; (6) promote a shared vision and build momentum for change by ensuring inclusive networks where everyone has a voice.Conclusion Structuring and supporting collaboration in large-scale initiatives is a powerful implementation strategy if contexts described in the guiding principles are present

Implementation of large, multi-site hospital interventions: a realist evaluation of strategies for developing capability

Abstract Background This study presents guidelines for implementation distilled from the findings of a realist evaluation. The setting was local health districts in New South Wales, Australia that implemented three clinical improvement initiatives as part of a state-wide program. We focussed on implementation strategies designed to develop health professionals’ capability to deliver value-based care initiatives for multisite programs. Capability, which increases implementers’ ability to cope with unexpected scenarios is key to managing change. Methods We used a mixed methods realist evaluation which tested and refined program theories elucidating the complex dynamic between context (C), mechanism (M) and outcome (O) to determine what works, for whom, under what circumstances. Data was drawn from program documents, a realist synthesis, informal discussions with implementation designers, and interviews with 10 key informants (out of 37 identified) from seven sites. Data analysis employed a retroductive approach to interrogate the causal factors identified as contributors to outcomes. Results CMO statements were refined for four initial program theories: Making it Relevant– where participation in activities was increased when targeted to the needs of the staff; Investment in Quality Improvement– where engagement in capability development was enhanced when it was valued by all levels of the organisation; Turnover and Capability Loss– where the effects of staff turnover were mitigated; and Community-Wide Priority– where there was a strategy of spanning sites. From these data five guiding principles for implementers were distilled: (1) Involve all levels of the health system to effectively implement large-scale capability development, (2) Design capability development activities in a way that supports a learning culture, (3) Plan capability development activities with staff turnover in mind, (4) Increased capability should be distributed across teams to avoid bottlenecks in workflows and the risk of losing key staff, (5) Foster cross-site collaboration to focus effort, reduce variation in practice and promote greater cohesion in patient care. Conclusions A key implementation strategy for interventions to standardise high quality practice is development of clinical capability. We illustrate how leadership support, attention to staff turnover patterns, and making activities relevant to current issues, can lead to an emergent learning culture

Implementation of consensus-based perioperative care pathways to reduce clinical variation for elective surgery in an Australian private hospital: a mixed-methods pre–post study protocol

Introduction Addressing clinical variation in elective surgery is challenging. A key issue is how to gain consensus between largely autonomous clinicians. Understanding how the consensus process works to develop and implement perioperative pathways and the impact of these pathways on reducing clinical variation can provide important insights into the effectiveness of the consensus process. The primary objective of this study is to understand the implementation of an organisationally supported, consensus approach to implement perioperative care pathways in a private healthcare facility and to determine its impact.Methods A mixed-methods Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid (type III) pre–post study will be conducted in one Australian private hospital. Five new consensus-based perioperative care pathways will be developed and implemented for specific patient cohorts: spinal surgery, radical prostatectomy, cardiac surgery, bariatric surgery and total hip and knee replacement. The individual components of these pathways will be confirmed as part of a consensus-building approach and will follow a four-stage implementation process using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment framework. The process of implementation, as well as barriers and facilitators, will be evaluated through semistructured interviews and focus groups with key clinical and non-clinical staff, and participant observation. We anticipate completing 30 interviews and 15–20 meeting observations. Administrative and clinical end-points for at least 152 participants will be analysed to assess the effectiveness of the pathways.Ethics and dissemination This study received ethical approval from Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Medical Sciences Committee (Reference No: 520221219542374). The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and reports for key stakeholders

Innovative models of healthcare delivery: an umbrella review of reviews

Objective To undertake a synthesis of evidence-based research for seven innovative models of care to inform the development of new hospitals.Design Umbrella review.Setting Interventions delivered inside and outside of acute care settings.Participants Children and adults with one or more identified acute or chronic health conditions.Data sources PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL.Primary and secondary outcome measures Clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, self-management and self-care and patient knowledge.Results A total of 66 reviews were included, synthesising evidence from 1272 primary studies across the 7 models of care. Virtual care was the most common model studied, addressed by 47 (73%) of the reviews. Common outcomes evaluated across reviews were clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, self-care and self-management, patient knowledge, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The findings indicate that the innovative models of healthcare we identified in this review may be effective in managing patients with a range of acute and chronic conditions. Most of the included reviews reported evidence of comparable or improved care.Conclusions A consideration of local infrastructure and individual patient characteristics, such as health literacy, may be critical in determining the suitability of models of care for patients and their implementation in local health systems.Trial registration number 10.17605/OSF.IO/PS6ZU