Improving the delivery of care for patients with diabetes through understanding optimised team work and organisation in primary care

Staff perceptions of community health centre team function in Ontario

OBJECTIVE

To examine perceptions of different staff groups about team functioning in mature, community-governed, interprofessional primary health care practices.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional online survey.

SETTING

The 75 community health centres (CHCs) in Ontario at the time of the study, which have cared for people with barriers to access to traditional health services in community-governed, interprofessional settings, providing medical, social, and community services since the 1970s.

PARTICIPANTS

Managers and staff of primary care teams in the CHCs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Scores on the short version of the Team Climate Inventory (with subscales addressing vision, task orientation, support for innovation, and participative safety), the Organizational Justice Scale (with subscales addressing procedural justice and interactional justice), and the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale, stratified by staff group (clinical manager, FP, nurse practitioner [NP], registered nurse, medical secretary, social worker, allied health provider, counselor, outreach worker, and administrative assistant).

RESULTS

A total of 674 staff members in 58 of 75 (77%) CHCs completed surveys. All staff groups generally reported positive perceptions of team function. The procedural justice subscale showed the greatest variation between groups. Family physicians and NPs rated procedural justice much lower than nurses and administrators did.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a unique view of the perceptions of different groups of staff in a long-standing interprofessional practice model. Future research is needed to understand why FPs and NPs perceive procedural justice more negatively than other team members do, and whether such perceptions affect outcomes such as staff turnover and health outcomes for patients.

Planning to be routine: habit as a mediator of the planning-behaviour relationship in healthcare professionals

Background

Gaps in the quality of care provided to people with type 2 diabetes are regularly identified. Healthcare professionals often have a strong intention to follow practice guidelines during consultations with people with type 2 diabetes; however, this intention does not always translate into action. Action planning (planning when, where and how to act) and coping planning (planning how to overcome pre-identified barriers) have been hypothesised to help with the enactment of intentions by creating mental cue-response links that promote habit formation. This study aimed to investigate whether habit helps to better understand how action and coping planning relate to clinical behaviour in the context of type 2 diabetes care.

Methods

The study utilised a prospective correlational design with six nested sub-studies. General practitioners and practice nurses (n = 427 from 99 UK primary care practices) completed measures of action planning, coping planning and habit at baseline and then self-reported their enactment of guideline-recommended advising, prescribing and examining behaviours 12 months later. Bootstrapped mediation analyses were used to test the indirect effect of action and coping planning on healthcare professionals’ clinical behaviour via their relationship with habit.

Results

Healthcare professionals who reported higher degrees of action or coping planning for performing six guideline recommended behaviours in the context of type 2 diabetes care were more likely to report performing these behaviours in clinical practice. All 12 bootstrapped mediation analyses showed that the positive relationship between planning (action and coping planning) and healthcare professionals’ clinical behaviour operated indirectly through habit.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that habit mediates the relationship between planning (action and coping planning) and healthcare professional behaviour. Promoting careful action and coping planning may support routinised uptake of guideline-recommended care by healthcare professionals in the primary care setting. Given the competing demands on healthcare professionals, exploring the behavioural processes involved in promoting more routinisation of behaviours where possible and appropriate could free up cognitive capacity for clinical behaviours that rely on more deliberation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0551-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Team Process Variation Across Diabetes Quality of Care Trajectories

Conceptual frameworks in health care do not address mechanisms whereby teamwork processes affect quality of care. We seek to fill this gap by applying a framework of teamwork processes to compare different patterns of primary care performance over time. We thematically analyzed 114 primary care staff interviews across 17 primary care clinics. We purposefully selected clinics using diabetes quality of care over 3 years using four categories: consistently high, improving, worsening, and consistently low. Analyses compared participant responses within and between performance categories. Differences were observed among performance categories for action processes (monitoring progress and coordination), transition processes (goal specification and strategy formulation), and interpersonal processes (conflict management and affect management). Analyses also revealed emergent concepts related to psychological and organizational context that were reported to affect team processes. This study is a first step toward a comprehensive model of how teamwork processes might affect quality of care.

Reflective and automatic processes in health care professional behaviour: a dual process model tested across multiple behaviours

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' behaviours require deliberate decision-making in complex contexts and may involve both impulsive (automatic) and reflective (motivational and volitional) processes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to test a dual process model applied to clinician behaviours in their management of type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The design used six nested prospective correlational studies. Questionnaires were sent to general practitioners and nurses in 99 UK primary care practices, measuring reflective (intention, action planning and coping planning) and impulsive (automaticity) predictors for six guideline-recommended behaviours: blood pressure prescribing (N = 335), prescribing for glycemic control (N = 288), providing diabetes-related education (N = 346), providing weight advice (N = 417), providing self-management advice (N = 332) and examining the feet (N = 218).

RESULTS

Respondent retention was high. A dual process model was supported for prescribing behaviours, weight advice, and examining the feet. A sequential reflective process was supported for blood pressure prescribing, self-management and weight advice, and diabetes-related education.

CONCLUSIONS

Reflective and impulsive processes predict behaviour. Quality improvement interventions should consider both reflective and impulsive approaches to behaviour change.

Identification, summary and comparison of tools used to measure organizational attributes associated with chronic disease management within primary care settings

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Given the increasing emphasis being placed on managing patients with chronic diseases within primary care, there is a need to better understand which primary care organizational attributes affect the quality of care that patients with chronic diseases receive. This study aimed to identify, summarize and compare data collection tools that describe and measure organizational attributes used within the primary care setting worldwide.

METHODS

Systematic search and review methodology consisting of a comprehensive and exhaustive search that is based on a broad question to identify the best available evidence was employed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 organizational attribute data collection tools that have been used within the primary care setting were identified. The tools varied with respect to overall focus and level of organizational detail captured, theoretical foundations, administration and completion methods, types of questions asked, and the extent to which psychometric property testing had been performed. The tools utilized within the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe study and the Canadian Primary Health Care Practice-Based Surveys were the most recently developed tools. Furthermore, of the 30 tools reviewed, the Canadian Primary Health Care Practice-Based Surveys collected the most information on organizational attributes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to collect primary care organizational attribute information at a national level to better understand factors affecting the quality of chronic disease prevention and management across a given country. The data collection tools identified in this review can be used to establish data collection strategies to collect this important information.

Conditions for production of interdisciplinary teamwork outcomes in oncology teams: protocol for a realist evaluation

BACKGROUND

Interdisciplinary teamwork (ITW) is designed to promote the active participation of several disciplines in delivering comprehensive cancer care to patients. ITW provides mechanisms to support continuous communication among care providers, optimize professionals' participation in clinical decision-making within and across disciplines, and foster care coordination along the cancer trajectory. However, ITW mechanisms are not activated optimally by all teams, resulting in a gap between desired outcomes of ITW and actual outcomes observed. The aim of the present study is to identify the conditions underlying outcome production by ITW in local oncology teams.

METHODS

This retrospective multiple case study will draw upon realist evaluation principles to explore associations among context, mechanisms and outcomes (CMO). The cases are nine interdisciplinary cancer teams that participated in a previous study evaluating ITW outcomes. Qualitative data sources will be used to construct a picture of CMO associations in each case. For data collection, reflexive focus groups will be held to capture patients' and professionals' perspectives on ITW, using the guiding question, 'What works, for whom, and under what circumstances?' Intra-case analysis will be used to trace associations between context, ITW mechanisms, and patient outcomes. Inter-case analysis will be used to compare the different cases' CMO associations for a better understanding of the phenomenon under study.

DISCUSSION

This multiple case study will use realist evaluation principles to draw lessons about how certain contexts are more or less likely to produce particular outcomes. The results will make it possible to target more specifically the actions required to optimize structures and to activate the best mechanisms to meet the needs of cancer patients. This project could also contribute significantly to the development of improved research methods for conducting realist evaluations of complex healthcare interventions. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use CMO associations to improved empirical and theoretical understanding of interdisciplinary teamwork in oncology, and its results could foster more effective implementation in clinical practice.

Improving Diabetes care through Examining, Advising, and prescribing (IDEA): protocol for a theory-based cluster randomised controlled trial of a multiple behaviour change intervention aimed at primary healthcare professionals

Background

New clinical research findings may require clinicians to change their behaviour to provide high-quality care to people with type 2 diabetes, likely requiring them to change multiple different clinical behaviours. The present study builds on findings from a UK-wide study of theory-based behavioural and organisational factors associated with prescribing, advising, and examining consistent with high-quality diabetes care.

Aim

To develop and evaluate the effectiveness and cost of an intervention to improve multiple behaviours in clinicians involved in delivering high-quality care for type 2 diabetes.

Design/methods

We will conduct a two-armed cluster randomised controlled trial in 44 general practices in the North East of England to evaluate a theory-based behaviour change intervention. We will target improvement in six underperformed clinical behaviours highlighted in quality standards for type 2 diabetes: prescribing for hypertension; prescribing for glycaemic control; providing physical activity advice; providing nutrition advice; providing on-going education; and ensuring that feet have been examined. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients appropriately prescribed and examined (using anonymised computer records), and advised (using anonymous patient surveys) at 12 months. We will use behaviour change techniques targeting motivational, volitional, and impulsive factors that we have previously demonstrated to be predictive of multiple health professional behaviours involved in high-quality type 2 diabetes care. We will also investigate whether the intervention was delivered as designed (fidelity) by coding audiotaped workshops and interventionist delivery reports, and operated as hypothesised (process evaluation) by analysing responses to theory-based postal questionnaires. In addition, we will conduct post-trial qualitative interviews with practice teams to further inform the process evaluation, and a post-trial economic analysis to estimate the costs of the intervention and cost of service use.

Discussion

Consistent with UK Medical Research Council guidance and building on previous development research, this pragmatic cluster randomised trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a theory-based complex intervention focusing on changing multiple clinical behaviours to improve quality of diabetes care.

Trial registration

ISRCTN66498413.

Theory-based predictors of multiple clinician behaviors in the management of diabetes

Behavioral theory is often tested on one behavior in isolation from other behaviors and theories. We aimed to test the predictive validity of constructs from motivation and action theories of behavior across six diabetes-related clinician behaviors, within the same sample of primary care clinicians. Physicians and nurses (n = 427 from 99 practices in the United Kingdom) completed questionnaires at baseline and 12 months.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

six self-reported clinician behaviors related to advising, prescribing and examining measured at 12 months; secondary outcomes: baseline intention and patient-scenario-based simulated behavior. Across six behaviors, each theory accounted for a medium amount of variance for 12-month behavior (median R adj (2)  = 0.15), large and medium amount of variance for two intention measures (median R adj (2)  = 0.66; 0.34), and small amount of variance for simulated behavior (median R adj (2)  = 0.05). Intention/proximal goals, self-efficacy, and habit predicted all behaviors. Constructs from social cognitive theory (self-efficacy), learning theory (habit) and action and coping planning consistently predicted multiple clinician behaviors and should be targeted by quality improvement interventions.

Engagement of groups in family medicine board maintenance of certification

PURPOSE

The American Board of Medical Specialties' Performance in Practice ("Part IV") portion of Maintenance of Certification (MOC) requirement provides an opportunity for practicing physicians to demonstrate quality improvement (QI) competence. However, specialty boards' certification of one physician at a time does not tap into the potential of collective effort. This article shares learning from a project to help family physicians work in groups to meet their Part IV MOC requirement.

METHODS

A year-long implementation and evaluation project was conducted. Initially, 348 members of a regional family physician organization were invited to participate. A second path was established through 3 health care systems and a county-wide learning collaborative. Participants were offered (1) a basic introduction to QI methods, (2) the option of an alternative Part IV MOC module using a patient experience survey to guide QI efforts, (3) practice-level improvement coaching, (4) support for collaboration and co-learning, and (5) provision of QI resources.

RESULTS

More physicians participated through group (66) than individual (12) recruitment, for a total of 78 physicians in 20 practices. Participation occurred at 3 levels: individual, intrapractice, and interpractice. Within the 1-year time frame, intrapractice collaboration occurred most frequently. Interpractice and system-level collaboration has begun and continues to evolve. Physicians felt that they benefited from access to a practice coach and group process.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice-level collaboration, access to a practice coach, flexibility in choosing and focusing improvement projects, tailored support, and involvement with professional affiliations can enhance the Part IV MOC process. Specialty boards are likely to discover productive opportunities from working with practices, professional organizations, and health care systems to support intra- and interpractice collaborative QI work that uses Part IV MOC requirements to motivate practice improvement.

Is organizational justice associated with clinical performance in the care for patients with diabetes in primary care? Evidence from the improving Quality of care in Diabetes study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes is an increasingly prevalent illness, and there is considerable variation in the quality of care provided to patients with diabetes in primary care.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore whether organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviour are associated with the behaviours of clinical staff when providing care for patients with diabetes.

METHODS

The data were from an ongoing prospective multicenter study, the 'improving Quality of care in Diabetes' (iQuaD) study. Participants (N = 467) were clinical staff in 99 primary care practices in the UK. The outcome measures were six self-reported clinical behaviours: prescribing for glycaemic control, prescribing for blood pressure control, foot examination, giving advice about weight management, providing general education about diabetes and giving advice about self-management. Organizational justice perceptions were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. The associations between organizational justice and behavioural outcomes were tested using linear multilevel regression modelling.

RESULTS

Higher scores on the procedural component of organizational justice were associated with more frequent weight management advice, self-management advice and provision of general education for patients with diabetes. The associations between justice and clinical behaviours were not explained by individual or practice characteristics, but evidence was found for the partial mediating role of organizational citizenship behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality improvement efforts aimed at increasing advice and education provision in diabetes management in primary care could target also perceptions of procedural justice.

Explaining clinical behaviors using multiple theoretical models

Background

In the field of implementation research, there is an increased interest in use of theory when designing implementation research studies involving behavior change. In 2003, we initiated a series of five studies to establish a scientific rationale for interventions to translate research findings into clinical practice by exploring the performance of a number of different, commonly used, overlapping behavioral theories and models. We reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the methods, the performance of the theories, and consider where these methods sit alongside the range of methods for studying healthcare professional behavior change.

Methods

These were five studies of the theory-based cognitions and clinical behaviors (taking dental radiographs, performing dental restorations, placing fissure sealants, managing upper respiratory tract infections without prescribing antibiotics, managing low back pain without ordering lumbar spine x-rays) of random samples of primary care dentists and physicians. Measures were derived for the explanatory theoretical constructs in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), and Illness Representations specified by the Common Sense Self Regulation Model (CSSRM). We constructed self-report measures of two constructs from Learning Theory (LT), a measure of Implementation Intentions (II), and the Precaution Adoption Process. We collected data on theory-based cognitions (explanatory measures) and two interim outcome measures (stated behavioral intention and simulated behavior) by postal questionnaire survey during the 12-month period to which objective measures of behavior (collected from routine administrative sources) were related. Planned analyses explored the predictive value of theories in explaining variance in intention, behavioral simulation and behavior.

Results

Response rates across the five surveys ranged from 21% to 48%; we achieved the target sample size for three of the five surveys. For the predictor variables, the mean construct scores were above the mid-point on the scale with median values across the five behaviors generally being above four out of seven and the range being from 1.53 to 6.01. Across all of the theories, the highest proportion of the variance explained was always for intention and the lowest was for behavior. The Knowledge-Attitudes-Behavior Model performed poorly across all behaviors and dependent variables; CSSRM also performed poorly. For TPB, SCT, II, and LT across the five behaviors, we predicted median R² of 25% to 42.6% for intention, 6.2% to 16% for behavioral simulation, and 2.4% to 6.3% for behavior.

Conclusions

We operationalized multiple theories measuring across five behaviors. Continuing challenges that emerge from our work are: better specification of behaviors, better operationalization of theories; how best to appropriately extend the range of theories; further assessment of the value of theories in different settings and groups; exploring the implications of these methods for the management of chronic diseases; and moving to experimental designs to allow an understanding of behavior change.

Diabetes care provision in UK primary care practices

Background

Although most people with Type 2 diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care, only a limited amount is known about the quality of diabetes care in this setting. We investigated the provision and receipt of diabetes care delivered in UK primary care.

Methods

Postal surveys with all healthcare professionals and a random sample of 100 patients with Type 2 diabetes from 99 UK primary care practices.

Results

326/361 (90.3%) doctors, 163/186 (87.6%) nurses and 3591 patients (41.8%) returned a questionnaire. Clinicians reported giving advice about lifestyle behaviours (e.g. 88% would routinely advise about calorie restriction; 99.6% about increasing exercise) more often than patients reported having received it (43% and 42%) and correlations between clinician and patient report were low. Patients’ reported levels of confidence about managing their diabetes were moderately high; a median (range) of 21% (3% to 39%) of patients reporting being not confident about various areas of diabetes self-management.

Conclusions

Primary care practices have organisational structures in place and are, as judged by routine quality indicators, delivering high quality care. There remain evidence-practice gaps in the care provided and in the self confidence that patients have for key aspects of self management and further research is needed to address these issues. Future research should use robust designs and appropriately designed studies to investigate how best to improve this situation.

Instrument development, data collection, and characteristics of practices, staff, and measures in the Improving Quality of Care in Diabetes (iQuaD) Study

Background

Type 2 diabetes is an increasingly prevalent chronic illness and an important cause of avoidable mortality. Patients are managed by the integrated activities of clinical and non-clinical members of primary care teams. This study aimed to: investigate theoretically-based organisational, team, and individual factors determining the multiple behaviours needed to manage diabetes; and identify multilevel determinants of different diabetes management behaviours and potential interventions to improve them. This paper describes the instrument development, study recruitment, characteristics of the study participating practices and their constituent healthcare professionals and administrative staff and reports descriptive analyses of the data collected.

Methods

The study was a predictive study over a 12-month period. Practices (N = 99) were recruited from within the UK Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework. We identified six behaviours chosen to cover a range of clinical activities (prescribing, non-prescribing), reflect decisions that were not necessarily straightforward (controlling blood pressure that was above target despite other drug treatment), and reflect recommended best practice as described by national guidelines. Practice attributes and a wide range of individually reported measures were assessed at baseline; measures of clinical outcome were collected over the ensuing 12 months, and a number of proxy measures of behaviour were collected at baseline and at 12 months. Data were collected by telephone interview, postal questionnaire (organisational and clinical) to practice staff, postal questionnaire to patients, and by computer data extraction query.

Results

All 99 practices completed a telephone interview and responded to baseline questionnaires. The organisational questionnaire was completed by 931/1236 (75.3%) administrative staff, 423/529 (80.0%) primary care doctors, and 255/314 (81.2%) nurses. Clinical questionnaires were completed by 326/361 (90.3%) primary care doctors and 163/186 (87.6%) nurses. At a practice level, we achieved response rates of 100% from clinicians in 40 practices and > 80% from clinicians in 67 practices. All measures had satisfactory internal consistency (alpha coefficient range from 0.61 to 0.97; Pearson correlation coefficient (two item measures) 0.32 to 0.81); scores were generally consistent with good practice. Measures of behaviour showed relatively high rates of performance of the six behaviours, but with considerable variability within and across the behaviours and measures.

Discussion

We have assembled an unparalleled data set from clinicians reporting on their cognitions in relation to the performance of six clinical behaviours involved in the management of people with one chronic disease (diabetes mellitus), using a range of organisational and individual level measures as well as information on the structure of the practice teams and across a large number of UK primary care practices. We would welcome approaches from other researchers to collaborate on the analysis of this data.