The role and impact of facilitators in primary care: findings from the implementation of the Gold Standards Framework for palliative care

How Type of Practice Ownership Affects Participation with Quality Improvement External Facilitation: Findings from EvidenceNOW

BACKGROUND

Facilitation is an implementation strategy that can help primary care practices improve healthcare quality and build quality improvement (QI) capacity when delivered in a flexible manner by trained professionals. Practice ownership is associated with use of QI. However, little is known about how practices of different ownership participate in external facilitation, and this could inform future initiatives.

OBJECTIVE

Using data from EvidenceNOW, we examined how practice ownership influences participation in external facilitation.

STUDY DESIGN

We used an iterative mixed-methods design.

PARTICIPANTS, APPROACH, AND MEASURES

We collected data from practices on practice characteristics (e.g., location, size, payer mix) and ownership type via surveys and from facilitators on the number of hours, encounters, and months each practice had with a facilitator via facilitation logs. Using multivariable linear regression, we examined the association between facilitation and ownership (n = 1117 practices). We conducted semi-structured interviews with EvidenceNOW leadership (n = 12) and facilitators (n = 51) and observed facilitators in a subset of practices (n = 64); we analyzed this qualitative data for patterns of facilitation.

KEY RESULTS

In the fully adjusted model, differences by ownership were non-significant; FQHCs, however, had significantly less participation in facilitation than clinician-owned practices across two measures (unadjusted difference: - 2.83, p < 0.01 for number of encounters, and - 2.04, p < 0.01 for number of months with encounters). Qualitative data showed that Health System and FQHC ownership influenced types of practices enrolled in EvidenceNOW, and suggested that in these practices lower autonomy and greater complexity compared to clinician-owned ownership influenced facilitation participation patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice ownership shaped how but not how much practices participated in external facilitation. This finding highlights the importance of tailoring facilitation approaches based on ownership-related characteristics in future QI initiatives.

Personal, technical and organisational factors affect whether physicians seek answers to clinical questions during patient care: a literature review

BACKGROUND

Numerous questions are generated for physicians during patient care. Facilitators and barriers affect the physicians' clinical information-seeking behaviour. While most health studies have focused on barriers, few have dealt with facilitators.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to identify facilitators in physicians' information-seeking behaviour to help respond to clinical questions raised during patient care.

METHODS

A narrative review was conducted, and 9 databases were searched. Selection criteria included original articles in the context of patient care and full-text articles published in the English language from 2002 to 2019. The articles were selected and analysed by group discussions.

RESULTS

Analysis of studies disclosed personal, technical and organisational facilitators including 26 themes. Internet utilisation and information searching skills, more available time, personal interests and knowing preferred sites or textbooks were among the personal factors. The most common technical factors included providing navigation support, and ease of searching and finding needed information. The most commonly reported factors at the organisational level are closeness to Internet facility and access during the consultation.

CONCLUSION

Information systems designers, health service managers and librarians may need to work together to provide systems and settings that encourage doctors to seek information to answer their clinical questions during patient care.

Recruiting general practitioners for palliative care research in primary care: real-life barriers explained

BACKGROUND

The implementation of early palliative care within a primary care setting is a recent academic topic. Recruiting General Practitioners (GPs) to participate in a palliative care study can be challenging. The pro-Spinoza project implemented a Care Pathway for Primary Palliative Care in 5 areas in Belgium. During this project, the feasibility of the recruitment of GPs and palliative care patients was evaluated.

METHODS

The recruitment process was recorded in detail via an electronic logbook combining quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative recordings included the contact types and the number of contacts with eligible GPs and were analysed descriptively. Qualitative recordings included field notes with feedback from the GPs and other stakeholders and were thematically analysed starting from the Grol and Wensing framework for professional behaviour change.

RESULTS

Of 4065 eligible GPs working in 5 areas under research, 787 GPs (19%) were contacted individually, 398 GPs (9,8%) were contacted face-to-face and most of these 398 GPs showed high interest in the topic. 112 GPs (2,8%) signed the collaboration agreement, but finally only 65 GPs (1,6%) delivered at least a completed baseline-questionnaire. Despite the initial interest in participating, the unpredictable and busy daily workloads of the GPs, as well as inexperience with research protocols, impeded the ability of the GPs to fully engage in the study. This resulted in the high dropout rate. Participating GPs reported that they had underestimated the effort required to effectively participate in the project.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment of GPs to palliative care research is challenging. Primary care is a vital service to engage in palliative care research however the practical limitations reduce the ability of the service to effectively engage in the research. More research is needed to determine how GPs might be better supported in research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02266069 , Registered 16th October 2014, retrospectively registered.

Role enactment of facilitation in primary care - a qualitative study

Background

Facilitation is a widely used implementation method in quality improvement. Reviews reveal a variety of understandings of facilitation and facilitator roles. Research suggests that facilitation interventions should be flexible and tailored to the needs and circumstances of the receiving organisations. The complexity of the facilitation field and diversity of potential facilitator roles fosters a need to investigate in detail how facilitation is enacted. Hence, the purpose of this study was to explore the enactment of external peer facilitation in general practice in order to create a stronger basis for discussing and refining facilitation as an implementation method.

Methods

The facilitation intervention under study was conducted in general practice in the Capital Region of Denmark in order to support an overall strategy for implementing chronic disease management programmes. We observed 30 facilitation visits in 13 practice settings and had interviews and focus groups with facilitators. We applied an explorative approach in data collection and analysis, and conducted an inductive thematic analysis.

Results

The facilitators mainly enacted four facilitator roles: teacher, super user, peer and process manager. Thus, apart from trying to keep the process structured and focused the facilitators were engaged in didactic presentations and hands-on learning as they tried to pass on factual information and experienced based knowledge as well as their own enthusiasm towards implementing practice changes. While occasional challenges were observed with enacting these roles, more importantly we found that a coaching based role which was also envisioned in the intervention design was only sparsely enacted meaning that the facilitators did not enable substantial internal group discussions during their facilitation visits.

Conclusion

Facilitation is a complex phenomenon both conceptually and in practice. This study complements existing research by showing how facilitation can be enacted in various ways and by suggesting that some facilitator roles are more likely to be enacted than others, depending on the context and intervention design and the professional background of the facilitators. This complexity requires caution when comparing and evaluating facilitation studies and highlights a need for precision and clarity about goals, roles, and competences when designing, conducting, and reporting facilitation interventions.

Facilitation roles and characteristics associated with research use by healthcare professionals: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Implementing research findings into practice is a complex process that is not well understood. Facilitation has been described as a key component of getting research findings into practice. The literature on facilitation as a practice innovation is growing. This review aimed to identify facilitator roles and to describe characteristics of facilitation that may be associated with successful research use by healthcare professionals.

METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases up to December 2016 and used predefined criteria to select articles. We included conceptual papers and empirical studies that described facilitator roles, facilitation processes or interventions, and that focused on healthcare professionals and research use. We used content and thematic analysis to summarise data. Rogers' five main attributes of an innovation guided our synthesis of facilitation characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 38 488 articles identified from our online and manual search, we included 195 predominantly research studies. We identified nine facilitator roles: opinion leaders, coaches, champions, research facilitators, clinical/practice facilitators, outreach facilitators, linking agents, knowledge brokers and external-internal facilitators. Fifteen facilitation characteristics were associated with research use, which we grouped into five categories using Rogers' innovation attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a diverse and broad literature on the concept of facilitation that can expand our current thinking about facilitation as an innovation and its potential to support an integrated, collaborative approach to improving healthcare delivery.

Embedding a Palliative Approach in Nursing Care Delivery: An Integrated Knowledge Synthesis

A palliative approach involves adapting and integrating principles and values from palliative care into the care of persons who have life-limiting conditions throughout their illness trajectories. The aim of this research was to determine what approaches to nursing care delivery support the integration of a palliative approach in hospital, residential, and home care settings. The findings substantiate the importance of embedding the values and tenets of a palliative approach into nursing care delivery, the roles that nurses have in working with interdisciplinary teams to integrate a palliative approach, and the need for practice supports to facilitate that embedding and integration.

External facilitators and interprofessional facilitation teams: a qualitative study of their roles in supporting practice change

Background

Facilitation is a powerful approach to support practice change. The purpose of this study is to better understand the facilitation roles exercised by both external facilitators and interprofessional facilitation teams to foster the implementation of change. Building on Dogherty et al.’s taxonomy of facilitation activities, this study uses an organizational development lens to identify and analyze facilitation roles. It includes a concise definition of what interprofessional facilitation teams actually do, thus expanding our limited knowledge of teams that act as change agents. We also investigate the facilitation dynamics between change actors.

Methods

We carried out a qualitative analysis of a 1-year process of practice change implementation. We studied four family medicine groups, in which we constituted interprofessional facilitation teams. Each team was supported by one external facilitator and included at least one family physician, one case manager nurse, and health professionals located on or off the family medicine group’s site (one pharmacist, plus at least one nutritionist, kinesiologist, or psychologist). We collected our data through focus group interviews with the four teams, individual interviews with the two external facilitators, and case audit documentation. We analyzed both predetermined (as per Dogherty et al., 2012) and emerging facilitation roles, as well as facilitation dynamics.

Results

A non-linear framework of facilitation roles emerged from our data, based on four fields of expertise: change management, project management, meeting management, and group/interpersonal dynamics. We identified 72 facilitation roles, grouped into two categories: “implementation-oriented” and “support-oriented.” Each category was subdivided into themes (n = 6; n = 5) for clearer understanding (e.g., legitimation of change/project, management of effective meetings). Finally, an examination of facilitation dynamics revealed eight relational ties occurring within and/or between groups of actors.

Conclusions

Facilitation is an approach used by appointed individuals, which teams can also foster, to build capacity and support practice change. Increased understanding of facilitation roles constitutes an asset in training practitioners such as organizational development experts, consultants, facilitators, and facilitation teams. It also helps decision makers become aware of the multiple roles and dynamics involved and the key competencies needed to recruit facilitators and members of interprofessional facilitation teams.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0458-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Conceptual foundations of a palliative approach: a knowledge synthesis

Background

Much of what we understand about the design of healthcare systems to support care of the dying comes from our experiences with providing palliative care for dying cancer patients. It is increasingly recognized that in addition to cancer, high quality end of life care should be an integral part of care that is provided for those with other advancing chronic life-limiting conditions. A “palliative approach” has been articulated as one way of conceptualizing this care. However, there is a lack of conceptual clarity regarding the essential characteristics of a palliative approach to care. The goal of this research was to delineate the key characteristics of a palliative approach found in the empiric literature in order to establish conceptual clarity.

Methods

We conducted a knowledge synthesis of empirical peer-reviewed literature. Search terms pertaining to “palliative care” and “chronic life-limiting conditions” were identified. A comprehensive database search of 11 research databases for the intersection of these terms yielded 190,204 documents. A subsequent computer-assisted approach using statistical predictive classification methods was used to identify relevant documents, resulting in a final yield of 91 studies. Narrative synthesis methods and thematic analysis were used to then identify and conceptualize key characteristics of a palliative approach.

Results

The following three overarching themes were conceptualized to delineate a palliative approach: (1) upstream orientation towards the needs of people who have life-limiting conditions and their families, (2) adaptation of palliative care knowledge and expertise, (3) operationalization of a palliative approach through integration into systems and models of care that do not specialize in palliative care.

Conclusion

Our findings provide much needed conceptual clarity regarding a palliative approach. Such clarity is of fundamental importance for the development of healthcare systems that facilitate the integration of a palliative approach in the care of people who have chronic life-limiting conditions.

Why (we think) facilitation works: insights from organizational learning theory

Background

Facilitation is a guided interactional process that has been popularized in health care. Its popularity arises from its potential to support uptake and application of scientific knowledge that stands to improve clinical and managerial decision-making, practice, and ultimately patient outcomes and organizational performance. While this popular concept has garnered attention in health services research, we know that both the content of facilitation and its impact on knowledge implementation vary. The basis of this variation is poorly understood, and understanding is hampered by a lack of conceptual clarity.

Discussion

In this paper, we argue that our understanding of facilitation and its effects is limited in part by a lack of clear theoretical grounding. We propose a theoretical home for facilitation in organizational learning theory. Referring to extant literature on facilitation and drawing on theoretical literature, we discuss the features of facilitation that suggest its role in contributing to learning capacity. We describe how facilitation may contribute to generating knowledge about the application of new scientific knowledge in health-care organizations.

Summary

Facilitation’s promise, we suggest, lies in its potential to stimulate higher-order learning in organizations through experimenting with, generating learning about, and sustaining small-scale adaptations to organizational processes and work routines. The varied effectiveness of facilitation observed in the literature is associated with the presence or absence of factors known to influence organizational learning, since facilitation itself appears to act as a learning mechanism. We offer propositions regarding the relationships between facilitation processes and key organizational learning concepts that have the potential to guide future work to further our understanding of the role that facilitation plays in learning and knowledge generation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0323-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The role of the practice facilitators in Ontario primary healthcare quality improvement

BACKGROUND

Practice facilitation is a key component of quality improvement in primary healthcare. Studies have reported the effectiveness of practice facilitation in improving quality management and care delivery. However, little has been published about practice facilitators' training, facilitation activities, and their perceived role in quality improvement in primary healthcare. This study examined practice facilitators' training and the perceptions of the practice facilitator role in a provincial primary healthcare learning collaborative quality improvement initiative in Ontario, Canada.

METHOD

Descriptive and qualitative methods were used to outline the practice facilitator training as well as to look into the experiences and perceptions of practice facilitators and primary healthcare teams regarding the practice facilitation role in quality improvement. Data collection included training artifacts, activity logs, self-reflection reports, and semi-structured interviews with practice facilitators and primary healthcare participants. Reflections and interviews were analyzed to identify the role of the practice facilitators from their own experience, and from the perspective of the participants. Descriptive statistics were used to learn about categories of facilitation activities undertaken and frequency of these activities.

RESULTS

Sixteen practice facilitators and seven family healthcare teams participated in the study. Practice facilitators received a two-day intensive training workshop and continued training. Their time was spent mostly working directly with participating teams, continued learning and training, communications and administration. They served as coaches, resource providers, enablers and motivators. Participating teams expressed satisfaction with the practice facilitator role, although they had hoped this position would provide onsite and hands-on support in conducting activities of quality improvement at the practice level.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice facilitators played a crucial role in the implementation of quality improvement in Ontario's learning collaborative program. The practice facilitator role is perceived to be that of a coach, enabler and motivator. This study suggests that the practice facilitator successfully supported participating teams to undertake quality improvement activities in primary healthcare settings.

The effectiveness of a semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention to optimise chronic care management in general practice: a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial

Background

The Danish health care sector is reorganising based on disease management programmes designed to secure integrated and high quality chronic care across hospitals, general practitioners and municipalities. The disease management programmes assign a central role to general practice; and in the Capital Region of Denmark a facilitator-based intervention was undertaken to support the implementation of the programmes in general practice. The purpose of the study was to assess the effectiveness of this semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention.

Method

The study was a stepped-wedge, randomised, controlled trial among general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark. The intervention group was offered three one-hour visits by a facilitator. The intervention was semi-tailored to the perceived needs as defined by each general practice, and the practices could choose from a list of possible topics. The control group was a delayed intervention group. The primary outcome was change in the number of annual chronic disease check-ups. Secondary outcomes were: changes in the number of annual check-ups for type 2 diabetes (DM2) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); changes in the number of spirometry tests, changes in the use of ICPC diagnosis coding and patient stratification; sign-up for a software program for patient overview; and reduction in number of practices with few annual chronic disease check-ups.

Results

We randomised 189 general practices: 96 practices were allocated to the intervention group and 93 to the delayed intervention group. For the primary outcome, 94 and 89 practices were analysed. Almost every outcome improved from baseline to follow-up in both allocation groups. At follow-up there was no difference between allocation groups for the primary outcome (p = 0.1639). However, some secondary outcomes favoured the intervention: a higher reported use of ICPC diagnosis coding for DM2 and COPD (p = 0.0050, p = 0.0243 respectively), stratification for COPD (p = 0.0185) and a faster initial sign-up rate for the software program.

Conclusion

The mixed results from this study indicate that a semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention of relatively low intensity is unlikely to add substantially to the implementation of disease management programmes for DM2 and COPD in a context marked by important concurrent initiatives (including financial incentives and mandatory registry participation) aimed at moving all practices towards changes in chronic care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01297075

Primary care quality improvement from a practice facilitator's perspective

BACKGROUND

Practice facilitation has proven to be effective at improving care delivery. Practice facilitators are healthcare professionals who work with and support other healthcare providers. To the best of our knowledge, very few studies have explored the perspective of facilitators. The objective of this study was to gain insight into the barriers that facilitators face during the facilitation process and to identify approaches used to overcome these barriers to help practices move towards positive change.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with four practice facilitators who worked with 84 primary care practices in Eastern Ontario, Canada over a period of five years (2007-2012). The transcripts were analyzed independently by three members of the research team using an open coding technique. A qualitative data analysis using immersion/crystallization technique was applied to interpret the interview transcripts.

RESULTS

Common barriers identified by the facilitators included accessibility to the practice (e.g., difficulty scheduling meetings, short meetings), organizational behaviour (team organization, team conflicts, etc.), challenges with practice engagement (e.g., lack of interest, lack of trust), resistance to change, and competing priorities. To help practices move towards positive change the facilitators had to tailor their approach, integrate themselves, be persistent with practices, and exhibit flexibility.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus on redesigning and transforming primary care in North America and around the world is rapidly growing. Practice facilitation has been pivotal in materializing the transformation in the way primary care practices deliver care. This study provides an exclusive insight into facilitator approaches which will assist the design and implementation of small- and large-scale facilitation interventions.

Exploring the usefulness of two conceptual frameworks for understanding how organizational factors influence innovation implementation in cancer care

Moving knowledge into practice and the implementation of innovations in health care remain significant challenges. Few researchers adequately address the influence of organizations on the implementation of innovations in health care. The aims of this article are to (1) present 2 conceptual frameworks for understanding the organizational factors important to the successful implementation of innovations in health care settings; (2) discuss each in relation to the literature; and (3) briefly demonstrate how each may be applied to 3 initiatives involving the implementation of a specific innovation-synoptic reporting tools-in cancer care. Synoptic reporting tools capture information from diagnostic tests, surgeries, and pathology examinations in a standardized, structured manner and contain only the information necessary for patient care. The frameworks selected were the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework and an organizational framework of innovation implementation; these frameworks arise from different disciplines (nursing and management, respectively). The constructs from each framework are examined in relation to the literature, with each construct applied to synoptic reporting tool implementation to demonstrate how each may be used to inform both practice and research in this area. By improving our understanding of existing frameworks, we enhance our ability to more effectively study and target implementation processes.

Cross-sectorial cooperation and supportive care in general practice: cancer patients' experiences

BACKGROUND

Cancer care usually involves several health professionals from different parts of the health care system. Often, the GP has an important role. Patients' experiences of continuity and support may be related to characteristics of health care, disease or patients.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate Danish cancer patients' experiences of their contact to the GP and the cooperation between the GP and the hospital.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional questionnaire study in three representative counties of Denmark. Based on a review of medical records from all hospital departments treating cancer patients, a random sample of 1490 patients completed a validated questionnaire regarding patient experiences. A mixed methods approach was applied. Associations between patient experiences and background variables were analysed in ordinal logistic regression models and patients' written comments were analysed qualitatively.

RESULTS

One-third of the patients evaluated the cooperation between hospitals and primary care as suboptimal. Younger patients and patients from the capital Copenhagen were most dissatisfied. A third had needed support from their GP, and 41% of these patients had not fully received what they needed. Older patients, patients in Stage 1 and patients from surgical departments were least likely to have needed their GP's support. Patients described support from the GP as empathic behaviour and help with coordinating health services.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of cancer patients experienced suboptimal cross-sectorial cooperation and supportive care. Efforts to improve cancer care cooperation may focus on the possible supportive role of the GP as it seems that there is an untapped potential in primary care.