Context Matters: Practitioner Perspectives on Immunization Delivery Quality Improvement Efforts

Gaps in vaccine management practices during vaccination outreach sessions in rural settings in southwestern Uganda

BACKGROUND

Outreach efforts were developed to bolster people's access to and use of immunization services in underserved populations. However, there have been multiple outbreaks of diseases like measles in Uganda, prompting policy makers and stakeholders to ask many unanswered questions. This research study was created to uncover the discrepancies between vaccine management practices at immunization outreach sessions in rural South Western Uganda compared with existing standards.

METHODS

The observational qualitative study, was done in 16 public health facilities across four districts of Uganda. Data were collected using in-depth interviews, facility record reviews, and observation. We assessed the vaccine management procedures before immunization session, transportation used, set up at the outreach site, management practices during the outreach session and packing of vaccines - according to World Health Organization immunization practice recommendations. The data were transcribed, coded and categories were formed and triangulated. Themes were generated based on a socio-ecologic framework to gain a better understanding of healthcare provider practices during immunization sessions.

RESULTS

Fifty-one individuals were interviewed; four Assistant District Health Officers, four cold chain technicians, 15 focal persons for the Expanded Program on Immunization, and 28 health care providers. The respondents' mean age was 35, 43 (84.3%) were females and 24 (47.1%) had a diploma. 11 (69%) outreaches were conducted at a distance of 5-12 km from the health facility and 7 (44%) were conducted in a building. For 8 outreaches (50%) health facility staff did not check the vaccine vial monitor status before the outreach while 12(75%) did not keep the vaccine hard lid cover closed during the sessions. The main areas of concern were insufficient vaccine integrity monitoring, improper handling and storage practices, deficient documentation, and inadequate vaccine transportation. These were similar across immunization outreach sites regardless of vaccine preventable disease outbreaks occurrences. The majority of these gaps were located at the individual level but were enabled by policy/environmental factors.

CONCLUSIONS

There are poor vaccine management procedures during outreach sessions contrary to established guidelines. Specific tactics to tackle knowledge deficiencies, health worker attitude, and fewer equipment shortages could improve compliance to guidelines.

The aspects of healthcare quality that are important to health professionals and patients: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Existing quality of care frameworks insufficiently integrate the perspectives of physicians, nurses and patients. We collected narrative accounts from these three groups to explore if their perspectives might add new content to these existing definitions.

METHODS

Ninety-seven descriptions of "good" and "poor" care episodes were collected from a convenience sample of physicians, nurses and outpatients at eight regional hospitals. Two coders classified the narrative contents into themes related to structures, processes and outcomes of care.

RESULTS

The physicians, nurses and patients raised the following "quality of care" aspects: Successful communication among staff, with patients and care companions; staff motivation; frequency of knowledge errors; prioritization of patient-preferred outcomes; institutional emphasis on building "quality cultures"; and organizational implementation of fluid system procedures.

CONCLUSION

Respondents primarily referred to care processes in their descriptions of "quality of care." "Hippocratic pride" (in response to care successes) and "Rapid reactivity" (in response to (near) failures) emerged as two new outcome indicators of high-quality care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study provides a first qualitative fundament for understanding the components of "quality of care" from a triangulated frontline perspective. Future research needs to validate our findings with quantitative data to explore their usefulness for completing existing quality frameworks.

The role of quality improvement collaboratives in general practice: a qualitative systematic review

Background

This systematic review used qualitative methodologies to examine the role of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) in general practice. The aim was to inform implementers and participants about the utility of using or participating in QICs in general practice.

Methods

Included studies were published in English, used a QIC intervention, reported primary research, used qualitative or mixed methods, and were conducted in general practice.

A Medline search between January 1995 and February 2020 was developed and extended to include Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo databases. Articles were sought through chaining of references and grey literature searches.

Qualitative outcome data were extracted using a framework analysis. Data were analysed using thematic synthesis. Articles were assessed for quality using a threshold approach based on the criteria described by Dixon-Woods.

Results

15 qualitative and 18 mixed-methods studies of QICs in general practice were included. Data were grouped into four analytical themes which describe the role of a collaborative in general practice: improving the target topic, developing practices and providers, developing the health system and building quality improvement capacity.

Discussion

General practice collaboratives are reported to be useful for improving target topics. They can also develop knowledge and motivation in providers, build systems and team work in local practice organisations, and improve support at a system level. Collaboratives can build quality improvement capacity in the primary care system. These roles suggest that QICs are well matched to the improvement needs of general practice.

General practice participants in collaboratives reported positive effects from effective peer interaction, high-quality local support, real engagement with data and well-designed training in quality improvement.

Strengths of this study were an inclusive search and explicit qualitative methodology. It is possible some studies were missed. Qualitative studies of collaboratives may be affected by selection bias and confirmation bias.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD4202017512.

A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing Virtual Learning Collaborative and Technical Assistance strategies to implement an early palliative care program for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Virtual Learning Collaboratives (VLC), learning communities focused on a common purpose, are used frequently in healthcare settings to implement best practices. Yet, there is limited research testing the effectiveness of this approach compared to other implementation strategies. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a VLC compared to Technical Assistance (TA) among community oncology practices implementing ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends), an evidence-based, early palliative care telehealth, psycho-educational intervention for patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer and their caregivers.

METHODS

Using Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) and Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Frameworks, this two-arm hybrid type-III cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) will compare two implementation strategies, VLC versus TA, among the 48 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice clusters that have not historically provided palliative care to all patients with advanced cancer. Three cohorts of practice clusters will be randomized to the study arms. Each practice cluster will recruit 15-27 patients and a family caregiver to participate in ENABLE. The primary study outcome is ENABLE uptake (patient level), i.e., the proportion of eligible patients who complete the ENABLE program (receive a palliative care assessment and complete the six ENABLE sessions over 12 weeks). The secondary outcome is overall program implementation (practice cluster level), as measured by the General Organizational Index at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Exploratory aims assess patient and caregiver mood and quality of life outcomes at baseline, 12, and 24 weeks. Practice cluster randomization will seek to keep the proportion of rural practices, practice sizes, and minority patients seen within each practice balanced across the two study arms.

DISCUSSION

This study will advance the field of implementation science by evaluating VLC effectiveness, a commonly used but understudied, implementation strategy. The study will advance the field of palliative care by building the capacity and infrastructure to implement an early palliative care program in community oncology practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov . NCT04062552; Pre-results. Registered: August 20, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04062552?term=NCT04062552&draw=2&rank=1.

The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: a realist review

BACKGROUND

Recognising the influence of context and the context-sensitive nature of quality improvement (QI) interventions is crucial to implementing effective improvements and successfully replicating them in new settings, yet context is still poorly understood. To address this challenge, it is necessary to capture generalisable knowledge, first to understand which aspects of context are most important to QI and why, and secondly, to explore how these factors can be managed to support healthcare improvement, in terms of implementing successful improvement initiatives, achieving sustainability and scaling interventions. The research question was how and why does context influence quality improvement initiatives in healthcare?

METHODS

A realist review explored the contextual conditions that influence healthcare improvement. Realist methodology integrates theoretical understanding and stakeholder input with empirical research findings. The review aimed to identify and understand the role of context during the improvement cycle, i.e. planning, implementation, sustainability and transferability; and distil new knowledge to inform the design and development of context-sensitive QI initiatives. We developed a preliminary theory of the influence of context to arrive at a conceptual and theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included in the review, demonstrating the interaction of key contextual factors across healthcare system levels during the improvement cycle. An evidence-based explanatory theoretical model is proposed to illustrate the interaction between contextual factors, system levels (macro, meso, micro) and the stages of the improvement journey. Findings indicate that the consideration of these contextual factors would enhance the design and delivery of improvement initiatives, across a range of improvement settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first realist review of context in QI and contributes to a deeper understanding of how context influences quality improvement initiatives. The distillation of key contextual factors offers the potential to inform the design and development of context-sensitive interventions to enhance improvement initiatives and address the challenge of spread and sustainability. Future research should explore the application of our conceptual model to enhance improvement-planning processes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017062135.

Strategies for Improving Vaccine Delivery: A Cluster-Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

New emphasis on and requirements for demonstrating health care quality have increased the need for evidence-based methods to disseminate practice guidelines. With regard to impact on pediatric immunization coverage, we aimed to compare a financial incentive program (pay-for-performance [P4P]) and a virtual quality improvement technical support (QITS) learning collaborative.

METHODS

This single-blinded (to outcomes assessor), cluster-randomized trial was conducted among unaffiliated pediatric practices across the United States from June 2013 to June 2014. Practices received either the P4P or QITS intervention. All practices received a Vaccinator Toolkit. P4P practices participated in a tiered financial incentives program for immunization coverage improvement. QITS practices participated in a virtual learning collaborative. Primary outcome was percentage of all needed vaccines received (PANVR). We also assessed immunization up-to-date (UTD) status.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from 3,147 patient records from 32 practices. Practices in the study arms reported similar QI activities (∼6 to 7 activities). We found no difference in PANVR between P4P and QITS (mean ± SE, 90.7% ± 1.1% vs 86.1% ± 1.3%, P = 0.46). Likewise, there was no difference in odds of being UTD between study arms (adjusted odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.52, P = .93). In within-group analysis, patients in both arms experienced nonsignificant increases in PANVR. Similarly, the change in adjusted odds of UTD over time was modest and nonsignificant for P4P but reached significance in the QITS arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.60, P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in either a financial incentives program or a virtual learning collaborative led to self-reported improvements in immunization practices but minimal change in objectively measured immunization coverage.