The role of conversation in health care interventions: enabling sensemaking and learning

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Those attempting to implement changes in health care settings often find that intervention efforts do not progress as expected. Unexpected outcomes are often attributed to variation and/or error in implementation processes. We argue that some unanticipated variation in intervention outcomes arises because unexpected conversations emerge during intervention attempts. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the role of conversation in shaping interventions and to explain why conversation is important in intervention efforts in health care organizations. We draw on literature from sociolinguistics and complex adaptive systems theory to create an interpretive framework and develop our theory. We use insights from a fourteen-year program of research, including both descriptive and intervention studies undertaken to understand and assist primary care practices in making sustainable changes. We enfold these literatures and these insights to articulate a common failure of overlooking the role of conversation in intervention success, and to develop a theoretical argument for the importance of paying attention to the role of conversation in health care interventions.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Conversation between organizational members plays an important role in the success of interventions aimed at improving health care delivery. Conversation can facilitate intervention success because interventions often rely on new sensemaking and learning, and these are accomplished through conversation. Conversely, conversation can block the success of an intervention by inhibiting sensemaking and learning. Furthermore, the existing relationship contexts of an organization can influence these conversational possibilities. We argue that the likelihood of intervention success will increase if the role of conversation is considered in the intervention process.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>The generation of productive conversation should be considered as one of the foundations of intervention efforts. We suggest that intervention facilitators consider the following actions as strategies for reducing the barriers that conversation can present and for using conversation to leverage improvement change: evaluate existing conversation and relationship systems, look for and leverage unexpected conversation, create time and space where conversation can unfold, use conversation to help people manage uncertainty, use conversation to help reorganize relationships, and build social interaction competence.</p

Nurses joining family doctors in primary care practices: perceptions of patients with multimorbidity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Among the strategies used to reform primary care, the participation of nurses in primary care practices appears to offer a promising avenue to better meet the needs of vulnerable patients. The present study explores the perceptions and expectations of patients with multimorbidity regarding nurses' presence in primary care practices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>18 primary (health) care patients with multimorbidity participated in semi-directed interviews, in order to explore their perceptions and expectations in regard to the involvement of nurses in primary care practices. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. After reviewing the transcripts, the principal investigator and research assistants performed thematic analysis independently and reached consensus on the retained themes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients with multimorbidity were open to the participation of nurses in primary care practices. They expected greater accessibility, for both themselves and for new patients. However, the issue of shared roles between nurses and doctors was a source of concern. Many patients held the traditional view of the nurse's role as an assistant to the doctor in his or her various duties. In general, participants said they were confident about nurses' competency but expressed concern about nurses performing certain acts that their doctor used to, notwithstanding a close collaboration between the two professionals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients with multimorbidity are open to the involvement of nurses in primary care practices. However, they expect this participation to be established using clear definitions of professional roles and fields of practice.</p

Practice Context Affects Efforts to Improve Diabetes Care for Primary Care Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve primary care diabetes management have assessed strategies across heterogeneous groups of patients and practices. However, there is substantial variability in how well practices implement interventions and achieve desired outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine practice contextual features that moderate intervention effectiveness. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial of three approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care. PARTICIPANTS: Forty small to mid-sized primary care practices participated, with 522 clinician and staff member surveys. Outcomes were assessed for 822 established patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes who had at least one visit to the practice in the 18 months following enrollment. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite measure of diabetes process of care, ascertained by chart audit, regarding nine quality measures from the American Diabetes Association Physician Recognition Program: HgA1c, foot exam, blood pressure, dilated eye exam, cholesterol, nephropathy screen, flu shot, nutrition counseling, and self-management support. Data from practices included structural and demographic characteristics and Practice Culture Assessment survey subscales (Change Culture, Work Culture, Chaos). KEY RESULTS: Across the three implementation approaches, demographic/structural characteristics (rural vs. urban + .70(p = .006), +2.44(p < .001), −.75(p = .004)); Medicaid: <20 % vs. ≥20 % (−.20(p = .48), +.75 (p = .08), +.60(p = .02)); practice size: <4 clinicians vs. ≥4 clinicians (+.56(p = .02), +1.96( p < .001), +.02(p = .91)); practice Change Culture (high vs. low: −.86(p = .048), +1.71(p = .005), +.34(p = .22)), Work Culture (high vs. low: −.67(p = .18), +2.41(p < .001), +.67(p = .005)) and variability in practice Change Culture (high vs. low: −.24(p = .006), −.20(p = .0771), −.44(p = .0019) and Work Culture (high vs. low: +.56(p = .3160), −1.0(p = .008), −.25 (p = .0216) were associated with trajectories of change in diabetes process of care, either directly or differentially by study arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the need for broader use of methodological approaches to better examine contextual effects on implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in primary care settings

The Patient Centered Medical Home: Mental Models and Practice Culture Driving the Transformation Process

The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) has become a dominant model of primary care re-design. The PCMH model is a departure from more traditional models of healthcare delivery and requires significant transformation to be realized. To describe factors shaping mental models and practice culture driving the PCMH transformation process in a large multi-payer PCMH demonstration project. Individual interviews were conducted at 17 primary care practices in South Eastern Pennsylvania. A total of 118 individual interviews were conducted with clinicians (N = 47), patient educators (N = 4), office administrators (N = 12), medical assistants (N = 26), front office staff (N = 7), nurses (N = 4), care managers (N = 11), social workers (N = 4), and other stakeholders (N = 3). A multi-disciplinary research team used a grounded theory approach to develop the key constructs describing factors shaping successful practice transformation. Three central themes emerged from the data related to changes in practice culture and mental models necessary for PCMH practice transformation: 1) shifting practice perspectives towards proactive, population-oriented care based in practice-patient partnerships; 2) creating a culture of self-examination; and 3) challenges to developing new roles within the practice through distribution of responsibilities and team-based care. The most tension in shifting the required mental models was displayed between clinician and medical assistant participants, revealing significant barriers towards moving away from clinician-centric care. Key factors driving the PCMH transformation process require shifting mental models at the individual level and culture change at the practice level. Transformation is based upon structural and process changes that support orientation of practice mental models towards perceptions of population health, self-assessment, and the development of shared decision-making. Staff buy-in to the new roles and responsibilities driving PCMH transformation was described as central to making sustainable change at the practice level; however, key barriers related to clinician autonomy appeared to interfere with the formation of team-based care