Convergences and divergences of diabetic patients' and healthcare professionals' opinions of care : a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES: To investigate opinions' convergences and divergences of diabetic patients and health-care professionals on diabetes care and the development of a regional diabetes programme. BACKGROUND: Development and implementation of a regional diabetes programme. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups to elicit diabetic patients' and health-care professionals' opinions, followed by content analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eight focus groups: four focus groups with diabetic patients (n = 39) and four focus groups with various health-care professionals (n = 34) residing or practicing in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland, respectively. RESULTS: Perceived quality of diabetes care varied between individuals and types of participants. To improve quality, patients favoured a comprehensive follow-up while professionals suggested considering existing structures and trained professionals. All participants mentioned communication difficulties between professionals and were favouring teamwork. In addition, they described the role that patients should have in care and self-management. Financial difficulties were also mentioned by both groups of participants. Finally, they were in favour of the development of a regional diabetes programme adapted to actors' needs. For patients indeed, such a programme would represent an opportunity to improve information and to have access to comprehensive care. For professionals, it would help the development of local networks and the reinforcement of existing tools and structures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging convergences and divergences of opinions of both diabetic patients and health-care professionals should help the further development of a programme adapted to users' needs, taking all stakeholders interests and priorities into consideration

Validity and usefulness of members reports of implementation progress in a quality improvement initiative: findings from the Team Check-up Tool (TCT)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Team-based interventions are effective for improving safety and quality of healthcare. However, contextual factors, such as team functioning, leadership, and organizational support, can vary significantly across teams and affect the level of implementation success. Yet, the science for measuring context is immature. The goal of this study is to validate measures from a short instrument tailored to track dynamic context and progress for a team-based quality improvement (QI) intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Design: Secondary cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of data from a clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a team-based quality improvement intervention to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates in intensive care units (ICUs).</p> <p>Setting: Forty-six ICUs located within 35 faith-based, not-for-profit community hospitals across 12 states in the U.S.</p> <p>Population: Team members participating in an ICU-based QI intervention.</p> <p>Measures: The primary measure is the Team Check-up Tool (TCT), an original instrument that assesses context and progress of a team-based QI intervention. The TCT is administered monthly. Validation measures include CLABSI rate, Team Functioning Survey (TFS) and Practice Environment Scale (PES) from the Nursing Work Index.</p> <p>Analysis: Temporal stability, responsiveness and validity of the TCT.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found evidence supporting the temporal stability, construct validity, and responsiveness of TCT measures of intervention activities, perceived group-level behaviors, and barriers to team progress.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The TCT demonstrates good measurement reliability, validity, and responsiveness. By having more validated measures on implementation context, researchers can more readily conduct rigorous studies to identify contextual variables linked to key intervention and patient outcomes and strengthen the evidence base on successful spread of efficacious team-based interventions. QI teams participating in an intervention should also find data from a validated tool useful for identifying opportunities to improve their own implementation.</p

Evaluation of the implementation of an integrated primary care network for prevention and management of cardiometabolic risk in Montréal

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The goal of this project is to evaluate the implementation of an integrated and interdisciplinary program for prevention and management of cardiometabolic risk (PCMR). The intervention is based on the Chronic Care Model. The study will evaluate the implementation of the PCMR in 6 of the 12 health and social services centres (CSSS) in Montréal, and the effects of the PCMR on patients and the practice of their primary care physicians up to 40 months following implementation, as well as the sustainability of the program. Objectives are: 1-to evaluate the effects of the PCMR and their persistence on patients registered in the program and the practice of their primary care physicians, by implementation site and degree of exposure to the program; 2-to assess the degree of implementation of PCMR in each CSSS territory and identify related contextual factors; 3-to establish the relationships between the effects observed, the degree of PCMR implementation and the related contextual factors; 4-to assess the impact of the PCMR on strengthening local services networks.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The evaluation will use a mixed design that includes two complementary research strategies. The first strategy is similar to a quasi-experimental "before-after" design, based on a quantitative approach; it will look at the program's effects and their variations among the six territories. The effects analysis will use data from a clinical database and from questionnaires completed by participating patients and physicians. Over 3000 patients will be recruited. The second strategy corresponds to a multiple case study approach, where each of the six CSSS constitutes a case. With this strategy, qualitative methods will set out the context of implementation using data from semi-structured interviews with program managers. The quantitative data will be analyzed using linear or multilevel models complemented with an interpretive approach to qualitative data analysis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Our study will identify contextual factors associated with the effectiveness, successful implementation and sustainability of such a program. The contextual information will enable us to extrapolate our results to other contexts with similar conditions.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01326130">NCT01326130</a></p

Implementation of a program for type 2 diabetes based on the Chronic Care Model in a hospital-centered health care system: "the Belgian experience"

Background: Most research publications on Chronic Care Model (CCM) implementation originate from organizations or countries with a well-structured primary health care system. Information about efforts made in countries with a less well-organized primary health care system is scarce. In 2003, the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance commissioned a pilot study to explore how care for type 2 diabetes patients could be organized in a more efficient way in the Belgian healthcare setting, a setting where the organisational framework for chronic care is mainly hospital-centered. Methods: Process evaluation of an action research project (2003-2007) guided by the CCM in a well-defined geographical area with 76,826 inhabitants and an estimated number of 2,300 type 2 diabetes patients. In consultation with the region a program for type 2 diabetes patients was developed. The degree of implementation of the CCM in the region was assessed using the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care survey (ACIC). A multimethod approach was used to evaluate the implementation process. The resulting data were triangulated in order to identify the main facilitators and barriers encountered during the implementation process. Results: The overall ACIC score improved from 1.45 (limited support) at the start of the study to 5.5 (basic support) at the end of the study. The establishment of a local steering group and the appointment of a program manager were crucial steps in strengthening primary care. The willingness of a group of well-trained and motivated care providers to invest in quality improvement was an important facilitator. Important barriers were the complexity of the intervention, the lack of quality data, inadequate information technology support, the lack of commitment procedures and the uncertainty about sustainable funding. Conclusion: Guided by the CCM, this study highlights the opportunities and the bottlenecks for adapting chronic care delivery in a primary care system with limited structure. The study succeeded in achieving a considerable improvement of the overall support for diabetes patients but further improvement requires a shift towards system thinking among policy makers. Currently primary care providers lack the opportunities to take up full responsibility for chronic care

Leaders, leadership and future primary care clinical research

Background: A strong and self confident primary care workforce can deliver the highest quality care and outcomes equitably and cost effectively. To meet the increasing demands being made of it, primary care needs its own thriving research culture and knowledge base. Methods: Review of recent developments supporting primary care clinical research. Results: Primary care research has benefited from a small group of passionate leaders and significant investment in recent decades in some countries. Emerging from this has been innovation in research design and focus, although less is known of the effect on research output. Conclusion: Primary care research is now well placed to lead a broad re-vitalisation of academic medicine, answering questions of relevance to practitioners, patients, communities and Government. Key areas for future primary care research leaders to focus on include exposing undergraduates early to primary care research, integrating this early exposure with doctoral and postdoctoral research career support, further expanding cross disciplinary approaches, and developing useful measures of output for future primary care research investment

What is the evidence for the effectiveness, appropriateness and feasibility of group clinics for patients with chronic conditions? A systematic review

Background Group clinics are a form of delivering specialist-led care in groups rather than in individual consultations. Objective To examine the evidence for the use of group clinics for patients with chronic health conditions. Design A systematic review of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) supplemented by qualitative studies, cost studies and UK initiatives. Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1999 to 2014. Systematic reviews and RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Additional searches were performed to identify qualitative studies, studies reporting costs and evidence specific to UK settings. Review methods Data were extracted for all included systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies using a standardised form. Quality assessment was performed for systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies. UK studies were included regardless of the quality or level of reporting. Tabulation of the extracted data informed a narrative synthesis. We did not attempt to synthesise quantitative data through formal meta-analysis. However, given the predominance of studies of group clinics for diabetes, using common biomedical outcomes, this subset was subject to quantitative analysis. Results Thirteen systematic reviews and 22 RCT studies met the inclusion criteria. These were supplemented by 12 qualitative papers (10 studies), four surveys and eight papers examining costs. Thirteen papers reported on 12 UK initiatives. With 82 papers covering 69 different studies, this constituted the most comprehensive coverage of the evidence base to date. Disease-specific outcomes – the large majority of RCTs examined group clinic approaches to diabetes. Other conditions included hypertension/heart failure and neuromuscular conditions. The most commonly measured outcomes for diabetes were glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure and cholesterol. Group clinic approaches improved HbA1c and improved systolic blood pressure but did not improve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. A significant effect was found for disease-specific quality of life in a few studies. No other outcome measure showed a consistent effect in favour of group clinics. Recent RCTs largely confirm previous findings. Health services outcomes – the evidence on costs and feasibility was equivocal. No rigorous evaluation of group clinics has been conducted in a UK setting. A good-quality qualitative study from the UK highlighted factors such as the physical space and a flexible appointment system as being important to patients. The views and attitudes of those who dislike group clinic provision are poorly represented. Little attention has been directed at the needs of people from ethnic minorities. The review team identified significant weaknesses in the included research. Potential selection bias limits the generalisability of the results. Many patients who could potentially be included do not consent to the group approach. Attendance is often interpreted liberally. Limitations This telescoped review, conducted within half the time period of a conventional systematic review, sought breadth in covering feasibility, appropriateness and meaningfulness in addition to effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and utilised several rapid-review methods. It focused on the contribution of recently published evidence from RCTs to the existing evidence base. It did not reanalyse trials covered in previous reviews. Following rapid review methods, we did not perform independent double data extraction and quality assessment. Conclusions Although there is consistent and promising evidence for an effect of group clinics for some biomedical measures, this effect does not extend across all outcomes. Much of the evidence was derived from the USA. It is important to engage with UK stakeholders to identify NHS considerations relating to the implementation of group clinic approaches. Future work The review team identified three research priorities: (1) more UK-centred evaluations using rigorous research designs and economic models with robust components; (2) clearer delineation of individual components within different models of group clinic delivery; and (3) clarification of the circumstances under which group clinics present an appropriate alternative to an individual consultation

UK guideline on transition of adolescent and young persons with chronic digestive diseases from paediatric to adult care

The risks of poor transition include delayed and inappropriate transfer that can result in disengagement with healthcare. Structured transition care can improve control of chronic digestive diseases and long-term health-related outcomes. These are the first nationally developed guidelines on the transition of adolescent and young persons (AYP) with chronic digestive diseases from paediatric to adult care. They were commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology under the auspices of the Adolescent and Young Persons (A&YP) Section. Electronic searches for English-language articles were performed with keywords relating to digestive system diseases and transition to adult care in the Medline (via Ovid), PsycInfo (via Ovid), Web of Science and CINAHL databases for studies published from 1980 to September 2014. The quality of evidence and grading of recommendations was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The limited number of studies in gastroenterology and hepatology required the addition of relevant studies from other chronic diseases to be included. These guidelines deal specifically with the transition of AYP living with a diagnosis of chronic digestive disease and/or liver disease from paediatric to adult healthcare under the following headings; 1. Patient populations involved in AYP transition 2. Risks of failing transition or poor transition 3. Models of AYP transition 4. Patient and carer/parent perspective in AYP transition 5. Surgical perspectiv

Models of care for musculoskeletal health: A cross-sectional qualitative study of Australian stakeholders' perspectives on relevance and standardised evaluation

Background: The prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal conditions are predicted to rapidly escalate in the coming decades. Effective strategies are required to minimise 'evidence-practice', 'burden-policy' and 'burden-service' gaps and optimise health system responsiveness for sustainable, best-practice healthcare. One mechanism by which evidence can be translated into practice and policy is through Models of Care (MoCs), which provide a blueprint for health services planning and delivery. While evidence supports the effectiveness of musculoskeletal MoCs for improving health outcomes and system efficiencies, no standardised national approach to evaluation in terms of their 'readiness' for implementation and 'success' after implementation, is yet available. Further, the value assigned to MoCs by end users is uncertain. This qualitative study aimed to explore end users' views on the relevance of musculoskeletal MoCs to their work and value of a standardised evaluation approach. Methods: A cross-sectional qualitative study was undertaken. Subject matter experts (SMEs) with health, policy and administration and consumer backgrounds were drawn from three Australian states. A semi-structured interview schedule was developed and piloted to explore perceptions about musculoskeletal MoCs including: i) aspects important to their work (or life, for consumers) ii) usefulness of standardised evaluation frameworks to judge 'readiness' and 'success' and iii) challenges associated with standardised evaluation. Verbatim transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach to derive key themes. Results: Twenty-seven SMEs (n = 19; 70.4 % female) including five (18.5 %) consumers participated in the study. MoCs were perceived as critical for influencing and initiating changes to best-practice healthcare planning and delivery and providing practical guidance on how to implement and evaluate services. A 'readiness' evaluation framework assessing whether critical components across the health system had been considered prior to implementation was strongly supported, while 'success' was perceived as an already familiar evaluation concept. Perceived challenges associated with standardised evaluation included identifying, defining and measuring key 'readiness' and 'success' indicators; impacts of systems and context changes; cost; meaningful stakeholder consultation and developing a widely applicable framework. Conclusions: A standardised evaluation framework that includes a strong focus on 'readiness' is important to ensure successful and sustainable implementation of musculoskeletal MoCs