Factors Affecting Primary Care Implementation for Older Veterans with multimorbidity in VA

Teamwork and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Implementation of new practices in team-based settings requires teams to work together to respond to new demands and changing expectations. However, team constructs and team-based implementation approaches have received little attention in the implementation science literature. This systematic review summarizes empirical research examining associations between teamwork and implementation outcomes when evidence-based practices and other innovations are implemented in healthcare and human service settings.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO and ERIC for peer-reviewed empirical articles published from January 2000 to March 2022. Additional articles were identified by searches of reference lists and a cited reference search for included articles (completed in February 2023). We selected studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods to examine associations between team constructs and implementation outcomes in healthcare and human service settings. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess methodological quality/risk of bias and conducted a narrative synthesis of included studies. GRADE and GRADE-CERQual were used to assess the strength of the body of evidence.

RESULTS

Searches identified 10,489 results. After review, 58 articles representing 55 studies were included. Relevant studies increased over time; 71% of articles were published after 2016. We were unable to generate estimates of effects for any quantitative associations because of very limited overlap in the reported associations between team variables and implementation outcomes. Qualitative findings with high confidence were: 1) Staffing shortages and turnover hinder implementation; 2) Adaptive team functioning (i.e., positive affective states, effective behavior processes, shared cognitive states) facilitates implementation and is associated with better implementation outcomes; Problems in team functioning (i.e., negative affective states, problematic behavioral processes, lack of shared cognitive states) act as barriers to implementation and are associated with poor implementation outcomes; and 3) Open, ongoing, and effective communication within teams facilitates implementation of new practices; poor communication is a barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

Teamwork matters for implementation. However, both team constructs and implementation outcomes were often poorly specified, and there was little overlap of team constructs and implementation outcomes studied in quantitative studies. Greater specificity and rigor are needed to understand how teamwork influences implementation processes and outcomes. We provide recommendations for improving the conceptualization, description, assessment, analysis, and interpretation of research on teams implementing innovations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020220168.

Home and Community-Based Service Use Varies by Health Care Team and Comorbidity Level of Veterans with Dementia

Home and community-based services (HCBSs) such as home care and adult day centers are vital to supporting adults with dementia in community settings. We investigated whether HCBS use (use of both home care and adult day, use of one service, and use of neither service) varied between adults receiving care from three types of health-care teams with case management from social workers and nurses, and by comorbidity level, using 2019 data of 143,281 patients with dementia in the Veterans Health Administration. We compared HCBS use by patients' type of case-managed team (Home-Based Primary Care, geriatrics-based primary care, and dementia-focused specialty care) to patients in none of these teams, stratified by patients' non-dementia comorbidities (<4 or ≥4). Each type of health-care team was associated with both home care and adult day services, at each level of comorbidity. Home-Based Primary Care was most consistently associated with other forms of HCBS use, followed by Dementia Clinics and geriatrics-based primary care, for patients with ≥4 non-dementia comorbidities. Our findings suggest that case management in primary and specialty care settings is a contributor to the use of critical community supports by patients with the most complex needs.

Identification of Implementation Strategies Using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool to Mitigate Barriers in a Primary Care Model for Older Veterans

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

As the proportion of the U.S. population over 65 and living with complex chronic conditions grows, understanding how to strengthen the implementation of age-sensitive primary care models for older adults, such as the Veterans Health Administration's Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams (GeriPACT), is critical. However, little is known about which implementation strategies can best help to mitigate barriers to adopting these models. We aimed to identify barriers to GeriPACT implementation and strategies to address these barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR-ERIC) Matching Tool.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a content analysis of qualitative responses obtained from a web-based survey sent to GeriPACT members. Using a matrix approach, we grouped similar responses into key barrier categories. After mapping barriers to CFIR, we used the Tool to identify recommended strategies.

RESULTS

Across 53 Veterans Health Administration hospitals, 32% of team members (n = 197) responded to our open-ended question about barriers to GeriPACT care. Barriers identified include Available Resources, Networks & Communication, Design Quality & Packaging, Knowledge & Beliefs, Leadership Engagement, and Relative Priority. The Tool recommended 12 Level 1 (e.g., conduct educational meetings) and 24 Level 2 ERIC strategies (e.g., facilitation). Several strategies (e.g., conduct local consensus discussions) cut across multiple barriers.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Strategies identified by the Tool can inform on-going development of the GeriPACT model's effective implementation and sustainment. Incorporating cross-cutting implementation strategies that mitigate multiple barriers at once may further support these next steps.

Impact of relational continuity of primary care in aged care: a systematic review

Background

Greater continuity of care has been associated with lower hospital admissions and patient mortality. This systematic review aims to examine the impact of relational continuity between primary care professionals and older people receiving aged care services, in residential or home care settings, on health care resource use and person-centred outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of five databases, four trial registries and three grey literature sources to October 2020. Included studies (a) aimed to increase relational continuity with a primary care professional, (b) focused on older people receiving aged care services (c) included a comparator and (d) reported outcomes of health care resource use, quality of life, activities of daily living, mortality, falls or satisfaction. Cochrane Collaboration or Joanna Briggs Institute criteria were used to assess risk of bias and GRADE criteria to rate confidence in evidence and conclusions.

Results

Heterogeneity in study cohorts, settings and outcome measurement in the five included studies (one randomised) precluded meta-analysis. None examined relational continuity exclusively with non-physician providers. Higher relational continuity with a primary care physician probably reduces hospital admissions (moderate certainty evidence; high versus low continuity hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–0.96, n = 178,686; incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.76–1.27, n = 246) and emergency department (ED) presentations (moderate certainty evidence; high versus low continuity HR 0.90, 95%CI 0.89–0.92, n = 178,686; IRR 0.91, 95%CI 0.72–1.15, n = 246) for older community-dwelling aged care recipients. The benefit of providing on-site primary care for relational continuity in residential settings is uncertain (low certainty evidence, 2 studies, n = 2,468 plus 15 care homes); whilst there are probably lower hospitalisations and may be fewer ED presentations, there may also be an increase in reported mortality and falls. The benefit of general practitioners’ visits during hospital admission is uncertain (very low certainty evidence, 1 study, n = 335).

Conclusion

Greater relational continuity with a primary care physician probably reduces hospitalisations and ED presentations for community-dwelling aged care recipients, thus policy initiatives that increase continuity may have cost offsets. Further studies of approaches to increase relational continuity of primary care within aged care, particularly in residential settings, are needed.

Review registration

CRD42021215698.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03131-2.