Integrated Primary Care Teams (IPCT) pilot project in Quebec: a protocol paper

Pre-post analysis of the impact of British Columbia nurse practitioner primary care clinics on patient health and care experience

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the impact of a primary care nurse practitioner (NP)-led clinic model piloted in British Columbia (Canada) on patients' health and care experience.

DESIGN

The study relies on a quasi-experimental longitudinal design based on a pre-and-post survey of patients receiving care in NP-led clinics. The prerostering survey (T0) was focused on patients' health status and care experiences preceding being rostered to the NP clinic. One year later, patients were asked to complete a similar survey (T1) focused on the care experiences with the NP clinic.

SETTING

To solve recurring problems related to poor primary care accessibility, British Columbia opened four pilot NP-led clinics in 2020. Each clinic has the equivalent of approximately six full-time NPs, four other clinicians plus support staff. Clinics are located in four cities ranging from urban to suburban.

PARTICIPANTS

Recruitment was conducted by the clinic's clerical staff or by their care provider. A total of 437 usable T0 surveys and 254 matched and usable T1 surveys were collected.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The survey instrument was focused on five core dimensions of patients' primary care experience (accessibility, continuity, comprehensiveness, responsiveness and outcomes of care) as well as on the SF-12 Short-form Health Survey.

RESULTS

Scores for all dimensions of patients' primary care experience increased significantly: accessibility (T0=5.9, T1=7.9, p<0.001), continuity (T0=5.5, T1=8.8, p<0.001), comprehensiveness (T0=5.6, T1=8.4, p<0.001), responsiveness (T0=7.2, T1=9.5, p<0.001), outcomes of care (T0=5.0, T1=8.3, p<0.001). SF-12 Physical health T-scores also rose significantly (T0=44.8, T1=47.6, p<0.001) but no changes we found in the mental health T scores (T0=45.8, T1=46.3 p=0.709).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the NP-led primary care model studied here likely constitutes an effective approach to improve primary care accessibility and quality.

How to measure the collective intelligence of primary healthcare teams?

INTRODUCTION

The capacity for teams and organizations to evolve and to thrive in ever-shifting environments is attributed to their collective intelligence. Collectively, intelligent team could prevent repetition of past mistakes and can help organizations and people work more efficiently. Researchers aimed to find a framework or a tool that could help explain collective intelligence in primary healthcare organizations.

METHODS

The framework was developed iteratively following a three-step process based on the Pragmatic utility concept analysis, each step fetching data from both literature and the team's expertise: (i) finding an existing framework, (ii) developing an initial framework, (iii) testing and refining the framework.

RESULTS

A broad literature search led researchers to focus more specifically on two interrelated frameworks, both concepts were created within the educational field. We first adapted these concepts to healthcare teams, then to the increasing interdisciplinarity of primary healthcare teams. We also subdivided the framework into clinical or organizational domain. Finally, we performed a secondary analysis from existing data of a larger project that aimed to evaluate seven primary care teams in Quebec.

CONCLUSIONS

This first attempt to conceptualize collective intelligence in a way that is specific to primary healthcare teams helps identify strengths and areas in which teams could potentially improve. From a theoretical perspective, the framework facilitates understanding of the concept of collective intelligence in primary healthcare teams. Our current results show a strong potential for this tool, but other tests and systematic validations are to be expected in order to better link collective intelligence and team performance.

Complexity as a factor for task allocation among general practitioners and nurse practitioners: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

General practitioner (GP) shortages and increasing demand for care led to the introduction of nurse practitioners (NPs) to primary care. Many concepts for task sharing among health professionals feature complexity. The aim of this narrative review was to examine how complexity is used as a factor for task allocation between GPs and NPs.

METHODS

According to the PRISMA statement, PubMed and CINAHL were searched systematically, and eligibility criteria were applied to detect literature concerning GPs and NPs in primary care and complexity in the context of task allocation. Relevant information was extracted, and a narrative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies from seven countries were included, comprising quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Complexity was used to describe patients, their needs, and health professionals' tasks. The understanding of the use of complexity as a factor for task allocation between NPs and GPs was based on the patient population (specific vs. unspecific), the setting (specific vs. unspecific), the numbers of health professionals involved (two vs. more than two), and the NP role (distinct model of care vs. no model). Despite similarities in these areas, the tasks which NPs perform range from providing minor to complex care. However, there is a slight trend towards NPs treating socially complex patients and GPs focusing on medically complex cases.

CONCLUSION

Complexity as a concept is prominent in primary care but remains broad and inconsistent as a factor for task allocation between NPs and GPs. This review can be used as a point of reference when practitioners are seeking methods for task allocation in a collaborative primary care setting.

Formalisation and subordination: a contingency theory approach to optimising primary care teams

OBJECTIVE

While there is consensus on the need to strengthen primary care capacities to improve healthcare systems' performance and sustainability, there is only limited evidence on the best way to organise primary care teams. In this article, we use a conceptual framework derived from contingency theory to analyse the structures and process optimisation of multiprofessional primary care teams.

DESIGN

We focus specifically on inter-relationships between three dimensions: team size, formalisation of care processes and nurse autonomy. Interview-based qualitative data for each of these three dimensions were converted into ordinal scores. Data came from eight pilot sites in Quebec (Canada).

RESULTS

We found a positive association between team size and formalisation (correlation score 0.55) and a negative covariation (correlation score -0.64) between care process formalisation and nurses' autonomy/subordination. Despite the study being exploratory in nature, such relationships validate the idea that these dimensions should be analysed conjointly and are coherent with our suggestion that using a framework derived from a contingency approach makes sense.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide insights about the structural design of nurse-intensive primary care teams. Non-physicians' professional autonomy is likely to be higher in smaller teams. Likewise, a primary care team that aims to increase nurses' and other non-physicians' professional autonomy should be careful about the extent to which it formalises its processes.

Analytical typology of multiprofessional primary care models

Background

There is only limited evidence to support care redefinition and role optimization processes needed for scaling up of a stronger primary care capacity.

Methods

Data collection was based on a keyword search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases. Three thousand, two hundred and twenty-nine documents were identified, 1851 met our inclusion criteria, 71 were retained for full-text assessment and 52 included in the final selection. The analysis process was done in four steps. In the end, the elements that were identified as particularly central to the process of transforming primary care provision were used as the basis of two typologies.

Results

The first typology is based on two structural dimensions that characterize promising multiprofessional primary care teams. The first is the degree to which the division of tasks in the team was formalized. The second dimension is the centrality and autonomy of nurses in the care model. The second typology offers a refined definition of comprehensiveness of care and its relationship with the optimization of professional roles.

Conclusions

The literature we analyzed suggests there are several plausible avenues for coherently articulating the relationships between patients, professionals, and care pathways. The expertise, preferences, and numbers of available human resources will determine the plausibility that a model will be a coherent response that is appropriate to the needs and environmental constraints (funding models, insurance, etc.). The typologies developed can help assess existing care models analytically or evaluatively and to propose, prospectively, some optimal operational parameters for primary care provision.