A Mixed Methods Study of Change Processes Enabling Effective Transition to Team-Based Care

A Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Teamwork on an Inpatient Pediatric Neurosurgery Service

BACKGROUND

Increased safety reports related to interprofessional teamwork on an acute care unit at a quaternary children's hospital prompted a teamwork-focused improvement effort on the pediatric neurosurgery service.

METHODS

An interprofessional workgroup was formed and met twice monthly throughout the project. A survey using modified validated items was disseminated to pediatric neurosurgery nurses, advanced practice providers (APPs), and physicians in March 2021 to identify opportunities for improvement. Structured debriefs on survey results promoted discourse on teamwork. The researchers implemented two interventions: (1) nursing-centered interprofessional education and (2) a rounding checklist before redistributing the survey in December 2021.

RESULTS

Baseline and follow-up survey response rates were 84.1% (58/69) and 71.4% (50/70), respectively. Nurses at baseline perceived lower teamwork scores for 12 items compared to physicians and APPs (p < 0.05). Nurse perceptions improved after interventions in: "using 'we' rather than 'they'" (21.3% vs. 51.2% agree, p = 0.003), "I am confident that this team works effectively" (46.8% vs. 80.5%, p = 0.001), "shared understanding of each other's role on the team" (48.9% vs. 73.2% agree, p = 0.02), and "getting others on the team to listen" (46.8% vs. 75.6%, p = 0.004). Mean teamwork effectiveness improved from 4.12 to 5.25 (out of 7; p < 0.0001). Nurses ranked three interventions as most effective: interprofessional training (35/41, 85.4%), educational clinical pearls (14/41, 34.1%), and structured opportunities to discuss teamwork (10/41, 24.4%).

CONCLUSION

Interprofessional training, a teamwork survey, and structured debriefing improved nurse perceptions of teamwork. Interventions targeting social components of change can improve teamwork even without process changes.

Puerto Rican healthcare workers' perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on their role, patient care, and mental health

PURPOSE

To explore the personal and work-related stressors of healthcare workers in Puerto Rico and the organizational support they received during the pandemic.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We used a qualitative descriptive design and from April - November, 2021, conducted semi-structured individual interviews with Puerto Rican frontline healthcare workers (n = 12) and supervisors (n = 5).

FINDINGS

Thematic analysis revealed five major themes: (a) Organizations' response to COVID-19; (b) increased complexity of patients; (c) intensified work and psychological demand for nurses; (d) overwhelmed and overworked; and (e) recommendations for healthcare leadership. Participants explained that their organizations' responses to COVID-19 were insufficient for  meeting the demands and acuity of the patients. Closure of outpatient services contributed to people presenting to hospitals with exacerbated chronic conditions - especially the elderly. With COVID-19 precautions prohibiting family visitation, nurses became responsible for total care, including emotional support of patients. In addition, the shortage of staff contributed to nurses assuming greater workloads, feeling overwhelmed and overworked, and healthcare worker resignations. Given their experiences, healthcare workers recommended that healthcare leadership show more appreciation for staff, demonstrate empathy, include frontline workers in decision-making, and provide mental health resources for staff.

CONCLUSIONS

This study with Puerto Rican frontline workers and supervisors uncovers the multiple stressors experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings underscore the need for prioritizing the well-being of healthcare workers, preparing healthcare leadership on how to support staff, and mandating nurse-to-patient ratios.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Healthcare workers explained the barriers they experienced for providing quality care to their patients. They also presented recommendations for healthcare leadership to facilitate supporting frontline workers, which ultimately contributes to optimal patient care.

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.

Singer S, Aveling EL. Optimizing patient partnership in primary care improvement: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The need to expand and better engage patients in primary care improvement persists.

PURPOSE

Recognizing a continuum of forms of engagement, this study focused on identifying lessons for optimizing patient partnerships, wherein engagement is characterized by shared decision-making and practice improvement codesign.

METHODOLOGY

Twenty-three semistructured interviews with providers and patients involved in improvement efforts in seven U.S. primary care practices in the Academic Innovations Collaborative (AIC). The AIC aimed to implement primary care improvement, emphasizing patient engagement in the process. Data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Sites varied in their achievement of patient partnerships, encountering material, technical, and sociocultural obstacles. Time was a challenge for all sites, as was engaging a diversity of patients. Technical training on improvement processes and shared learning "on the job" were important. External, organizational, and individual-level resources helped overcome sociocultural challenges: The AIC drove provider buy-in, a team-based improvement approach helped shift relationships from providers and recipients toward teammates, and individual qualities and behaviors that flattened hierarchies and strengthened interpersonal relationships further enhanced "teamness." A key factor influencing progress toward transformative partnerships was a strong shared learning journey, characterized by frequent interactions, proximity to improvement decision-making, and learning together from the "lived experience" of practice improvement. Teams came to value not only patients' knowledge but also changes wrought by working collaboratively over time.

CONCLUSION

Establishing practice improvement partnerships remains challenging, but partnering with patients on improvement journeys offers distinctive gains for high-quality patient-centered care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Engaging diverse patient partners requires significant disruption to organizational norms and routines, and the trend toward team-based primary care offers a fertile context for patient partnerships. Material, technical, and sociocultural resources should be evaluated not only for whether they overcome specific challenges but also for how they enhance the shared learning journey.

Team-Based Primary Care Practice Transformation Initiative and Changes in Patient Experience and Recommended Cancer Screening Rates

Team-based care has emerged as a promising strategy for primary care practices to provide high-quality care. We examine changes in patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates associated with a primary care transformation initiative that established team-based care. Our observational study included 13 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area that participated in 2 learning collaboratives: the first (2012-2014) aimed to establish team-based primary care, while the second (2014-2016) focused on improving patient safety and cancer screening. We identified 37 comparison practices of similar size and network affiliation. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre (2013) and post (2015) patient experience and recommended cancer screening rates between intervention and comparison practices. We estimated linear regression models, using inverse probability weighting to balance on observable differences. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners data on patient experience comes from surveys (with communication, integration, knowledge of patient, access, office staff, and willingness to recommend domains), and its data on screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers is derived from chart abstraction. Relative to comparison practices, the communication score in intervention practices increased by 1.47 percentage points on a 100-point scale (P = .02) between pre and post periods. We did not detect immediate improvements in other measures of patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates. Communication may be the first dimension of patient experience that improves following establishment of team-based primary care, and changing care processes may require more time or attention in the transition to team-based care. Our findings also suggest a need to better understand the variation in implementation factors that facilitate some practices’ successful transitions to team-based care, and to use teams effectively to improve cancer screening processes.