Mixed methods studies: a foundation for primary care research

Care quality and implementation of the chronic care model: a quantitative study

PURPOSE

We wanted to test whether improvements in care quality were correlated with changes in the Chronic Care Model (CCM) in a large medical group that attempted to implement the CCM.

METHODS

The leaders of 17 primary care clinics in this medical group completed the Assessing Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) survey measure of CCM implementation before and after care system changes were made. We used administrative data to measure care quality changes for yearly samples of patients with diabetes, coronary heart disease, or depression.

RESULTS

The total ACIC score for the CCM increased by an overall average of 1.4 points (from 5.8 to 7.2 on a scale of 1 to 11, P = .02) and significant increases occurred for 3 of the 6 components of the CCM. During this time, patients experienced a significant increase in the proportion meeting a composite outcome measure for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and glycated hemoglobin levels (from 15.7% to 25.5%, P = .001). Heart disease patients meeting a composite measure for LDL values increased from 46.8% to 57.8%, and the percentage of patients with 1 or more cardiac events dropped from 17.2% to 11.4% (P = .001 for each). Persistent use of new antidepressants did not change, but more of these patients had follow-up visits (P = .02). Only the diabetes measure was significantly correlated with 2 CCM elements-clinical information systems and decision support.

CONCLUSION

Despite implementation of the CCM and improvements in quality measures for 3 chronic diseases, there were few significant correlations between these changes. Showing such a relationship may require larger changes, a larger number of clinics, changes in other CCM elements, or a more-sensitive measurement tool.

The qualitative research interview

BACKGROUND

Interviews are among the most familiar strategies for collecting qualitative data. The different qualitative interviewing strategies in common use emerged from diverse disciplinary perspectives resulting in a wide variation among interviewing approaches. Unlike the highly structured survey interviews and questionnaires used in epidemiology and most health services research, we examine less structured interview strategies in which the person interviewed is more a participant in meaning making than a conduit from which information is retrieved.

PURPOSE

In this article we briefly review the more common qualitative interview methods and then focus on the widely used individual face-to-face in-depth interview, which seeks to foster learning about individual experiences and perspectives on a given set of issues. We discuss methods for conducting in-depth interviews and consider relevant ethical issues with particular regard to the rights and protection of the participants.

Shared decision making and the experience of partnership in primary care

PURPOSE

Communication has been researched either as a set of behaviors or as a facet of the patient-physician relationship, often leading to conflicting results. To determine the relationship between these perspectives, we examined shared decision making (SDM) and the subjective experience of partnership for patients and physicians in primary care.

METHODS

From a convenience sample of experienced primary care physicians in 3 clinics, we recruited a stratified sample of 18 English- or Spanish-speaking patients. Direct observation of visits was followed by videotape-triggered stimulated recall sessions with patients and physicians. We coded decision moments for objective evidence of SDM, using a structured instrument. We classified patients' and physicians' subjective experience of partnership as positive or negative by a consensus analysis of stimulated recall sessions. We combined results from these 2 analyses to generate 4 archetypes of engagements and used grounded theory to identify themes associated with each archetype.

RESULTS

The 18 visits yielded 125 decisions, 62 (50%) of which demonstrated SDM. Eighty-two decisions were discussed in stimulated recall and available for combined analysis, resulting in 4 archetypes of engagement in decision making: full engagement (SDM present, subjective experience positive)--22%; simulated engagement (SDM present, subjective experience negative)--38%; assumed engagement (SDM absent, subjective experience positive)--21%; and nonengagement (SDM absent, subjective experience negative)--19%. Thematic analysis revealed that both relationship factors (eg, trust, power) and communication behavior influenced subjective experience of partnership.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining direct observation and assessment of the subjective experience of partnership suggests that communication behavior does not ensure an experience of collaboration, and a positive subjective experience of partnership does not reflect full communication. Attempts to enhance patient-physician partnership must attend to both effective communication style and affective relationship dynamics.

Increasing capacity for innovation in bureaucratic primary care organizations: a whole system participatory action research project

PURPOSE

We wanted to identify what organizational features support innovation in Primary Care Groups (PCGs).

METHODS

Our study used a whole system participatory action research model. Four research teams provided complementary insights. Four case study PCGs were analyzed. Two had an intervention to help local facilitators reflect on their work. Data included 70 key informant interviews, observations of clinical governance interventions and committee meetings, analysis of written materials, surveys and telephone interviews of London Primary Care Organizations, interviews with 20 nurses, and interviews with 6 finance directors. A broad range of stakeholders reviewed data at annual conferences and formed conclusions about trustworthy principles. Sequential research phases were refocused in the light of these conclusions and in response to the changing political context.

RESULTS

Five features were associated with increased organizational capacity for innovation: (1) clear structures and a vision for corporate and clinical governance; (2) multiple opportunities for people to reflect and learn at all levels of the organization, and connections between these "learning spaces"; (3) both clinicians and managers in leadership roles that encourage participation; (4) the right timing for an initiative and its adaptation to the local context; and (5) external facilitation that provides opportunities for people to make sense of their experiences. Low morale was commonly attributed to 3 features: (1) overwhelming pace of reform, (2) inadequate staff experience and supportive infrastructure, and (3) financial deficits.

CONCLUSIONS

These features together may support innovation in other primary care bureaucracies. The research methodology enabled people from different backgrounds to make sense of diverse research insights.

Liability implications of physician-directed care coordination

PURPOSE

Various public and private initiatives encourage physicians to coordinate care for patients who have multiple chronic conditions, but physicians may resist doing so for fear of liability. This article assesses the extent of liability risk.

METHODS

This qualitative study combines legal research with key informant interviews. Relevant legal authorities were identified through literature searches in legal databases. In-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 16 key informants who have relevant expertise in malpractice insurance, risk management, or liability law. Additionally, 19 other participants with relevant experience in case management or managed care were briefly queried about their liability experience relating to care management.

RESULTS

Some aspects of care coordination for patients with multiple chronic conditions hold potential for higher liability. Physicians coordinating care have a broader responsibility for patients with complex conditions who have a greater chance of poor outcomes. Care coordinators may be held to a higher standard of care by adopting best practices guidelines or by making medical decisions on issues that require specialized expertise. Other aspects, however, lower liability risk: elderly patients are less likely to sue, care coordination should improve outcomes, and the information systems that support enhanced care coordination target the major sources of medical error in primary care. On balance, the liability risks of care coordination are commensurate with other risks in primary care practice. Liability insurers indicated no reluctance to insure physicians who coordinate care for patients with multiple chronic conditions and no strong tendency to attribute higher risk to this role. Physicians who currently perform these or similar functions have not encountered demonstrably higher liability.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' perceptions about the liability risks of coordinating care for patients with multiple chronic conditions do not match evidence about the factors actually driving liability. It appears from many informed sources that there is no strong basis for physicians who perform these functions to have serious concerns about liability; instead, care coordination done well may lower liability risks.