Implementation challenges in delivering team-based care ('TEAMcare') for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a public hospital setting: a mixed methods approach

Applying RE-AIM to examine the impact of an implementation facilitation package to scale up a program for Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

US Veterans are four times more likely to be diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared to the civilian population with no care model that consistently improves Veteran outcomes when scaled. COPD Coordinated Access to Reduce Exacerbations (CARE) is a care bundle intended to improve the delivery of evidence-based practices to Veterans. To address challenges to scaling this program in the Veterans' Health Administration (VA), the COPD CARE Academy (Academy), an implementation facilitation package comprised of five implementation strategies was designed and implemented.

METHODS

This evaluation utilized a mixed-methods approach to assess the impact of the Academy's implementation strategies on the RE-AIM framework implementation outcomes and the extent to which they were effective at increasing clinicians' perceived capability to implement COPD CARE. A survey was administered one week after Academy participation and a semi-structured interview conducted 8 to 12 months later. Descriptive statistics were calculated for quantitative items and thematic analysis was used to analyze open-ended items.

RESULTS

Thirty-six clinicians from 13 VA medical centers (VAMCs) participated in the Academy in 2020 and 2021 and 264 front-line clinicians completed COPD CARE training. Adoption of the Academy was indicated by high rates of Academy session attendance (90%) and high utilization of Academy resources. Clinicians reported the Academy to be acceptable and appropriate as an implementation package and clinicians from 92% of VAMCs reported long-term utilization of Academy resources. Effectiveness of the Academy was represented by clinicians' significant increases (p < 0.05) in their capability to complete ten implementation tasks after Academy participation.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation found that the use of implementation facilitation paired with additional strategies enhanced the capacity of clinicians to implement COPD CARE. Future assessments are needed to explore post-academy resources that would help VAMCs to strategize localized approaches to overcome barriers.

Acceptability, Appropriateness and Feasibility of a Nurse-Led Integrated Care Intervention for Patients with Severe Exacerbation of COPD from the Healthcare Professional's Perspective - A Mixed Method Study

Purpose

To improve inpatient care and self-management in patients with severe acute exacerbations of COPD, we implemented a nurse-led behavioral intervention. This study aimed to assess implementation outcomes from the perspective of the healthcare professionals (HCP) who delivered it.

Methods

Using an explanatory sequential mixed method approach, we conducted an online questionnaire and two small group interviews. We applied descriptive statistics for quantitative data, a framework analysis for qualitative data, and a mixed methods matrix to integrate the results.

Results

A total of 19 of 27 invited participants answered the online questionnaire; 9 of 19 participated in the group interviews. The intervention's overall acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility was rated high to very high (median 5/5; 4/5 and 4/5). Enablers to implementation included general recognition of the need for specialized care, sufficient knowledge of the intervention by HCP, and strong interprofessional collaboration. Main barriers included the lack of resident physician's resources and difficulties in adaptability.

Conclusion

While the acceptance of the intervention was very high, the perceived appropriateness and feasibility were affected by its complexity. The availability of a knowledgeable interprofessional core team is a strategy that supports the implementation of complex interventions.

Tailored or adapted interventions for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and at least one other long-term condition: a mixed methods review

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by shortness of breath, cough and recurrent exacerbations. People with COPD often live with one or more co-existing long-term health conditions (comorbidities). People with more severe COPD often have a higher number of comorbidities, putting them at greater risk of morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of any single intervention for COPD adapted or tailored to their comorbidity(s) compared to any other intervention for people with COPD and one or more common comorbidities (quantitative data, RCTs) in terms of the following outcomes: Quality of life, exacerbations, functional status, all-cause and respiratory-related hospital admissions, mortality, pain, and depression and anxiety. To assess the effectiveness of an adapted or tailored single COPD intervention (simple or complex) that is aimed at changing the management of people with COPD and one or more common comorbidities (quantitative data, RCTs) compared to usual care in terms of the following outcomes: Quality of life, exacerbations, functional status, all-cause and respiratory-related hospital admissions, mortality, pain, and depression and anxiety. To identify emerging themes that describe the views and experiences of patients, carers and healthcare professionals when receiving or providing care to manage multimorbidities (qualitative data).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases including the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, to identify relevant randomised and qualitative studies. We also searched trial registries and conducted citation searches. The latest search was conducted in January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) compared a) any single intervention for COPD adapted or tailored to their comorbidity(s) compared to any other intervention, or b) any adapted or tailored single COPD intervention (simple or complex) that is aimed at changing the management of people with COPD and one or more comorbidities, compared to usual care. We included qualitative studies or mixed-methods studies to identify themes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for analysis of the RCTs. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool for the RCTs and the CASP checklist for the qualitative studies. We planned to use the Mixed Methods Appraisal tool (MMAT) to assess the risk of bias in mixed-methods studies, but we found none. We used GRADE and CERQual to assess the quality of the quantitative and qualitative evidence respectively. The primary outcome measures for this review were quality of life and exacerbations.

MAIN RESULTS

Quantitative studies We included seven studies (1197 participants) in the quantitative analyses, with interventions including telemonitoring, pulmonary rehabilitation, treatment optimisation, water-based exercise training and case management. Interventions were either compared with usual care or with an active comparator (such as land-based exercise training). Duration of trials ranged from 4 to 52 weeks. Mean age of participants ranged from 64 to 72 years and COPD severity ranged from mild to very severe. Trials included either people with COPD and a specific comorbidity (including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, lung cancer, head or neck cancer, and musculoskeletal conditions), or with one or more comorbidities of any type. Overall, we judged the evidence presented to be of moderate to very low certainty (GRADE), mainly due to the methodological quality of included trials and imprecision of effect estimates. Intervention versus usual care Quality of life as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score may improve with tailored pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care at 52 weeks (mean difference (MD) -10.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.66 to -9.04; 1 study, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tailored pulmonary rehabilitation is likely to improve COPD assessment test (CAT) scores compared with usual care at 52 weeks (MD -8.02, 95% CI -9.44 to -6.60; 1 study, 70 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and with a multicomponent telehealth intervention at 52 weeks (MD -6.90, 95% CI -9.56 to -4.24; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence is uncertain about effects of pharmacotherapy optimisation or telemonitoring interventions on CAT improvement compared with usual care. There may be little to no difference in the number of people experiencing exacerbations, or mean exacerbations with case management compared with usual care (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.57; 1 study, 470 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For secondary outcomes, six-minute walk distance (6MWD) may improve with pulmonary rehabilitation, water-based exercise or multicomponent interventions at 38 to 52 weeks (low-certainty evidence). A multicomponent intervention may result in fewer people being admitted to hospital at 17 weeks, although there may be little to no difference in a telemonitoring intervention. There may be little to no difference between intervention and usual care for mortality. Intervention versus active comparator We included one study comparing water-based and land-based exercise (30 participants). We found no evidence for quality of life or exacerbations. There may be little to no difference between water- and land-based exercise for 6MWD (MD 5 metres, 95% CI -22 to 32; 38 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Qualitative studies One nested qualitative study (21 participants) explored perceptions and experiences of people with COPD and long-term conditions, and of researchers and health professionals who were involved in an RCT of telemonitoring equipment. Several themes were identified, including health status, beliefs and concerns, reliability of equipment, self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, factors affecting usefulness and perceived usefulness, attitudes and intention, self-management and changes in healthcare use. We judged the qualitative evidence presented as of very low certainty overall.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Owing to a paucity of eligible trials, as well as diversity in the intervention type, comorbidities and the outcome measures reported, we were unable to provide a robust synthesis of data. Pulmonary rehabilitation or multicomponent interventions may improve quality of life and functional status (6MWD), but the evidence is too limited to draw a robust conclusion. The key take-home message from this review is the lack of data from RCTs on treatments for people living with COPD and comorbidities. Given the variation in number and type of comorbidity(s) an individual may have, and severity of COPD, larger studies reporting individual patient data are required to determine these effects.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions of pulmonary rehabilitation as a management strategy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a critical interpretive synthesis

Purpose: To establish literature regarding healthcare professionals' perceptions of pulmonary rehabilitation as a management strategy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Method: A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted; CINAHL, PsychINFO and MEDLINE were searched between 1988 and August 2019, using MeSH headings and key terms. Reference lists of accepted papers were also searched. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, written in English, including healthcare professionals' perceptions of pulmonary rehabilitation were included. The search yielded 133 papers which were assessed for eligibility; 20 met the inclusion criteria.Results: Two themes were identified, the first explored "Barriers to Pulmonary Rehabilitation" from a healthcare professional's perspective. This incorporated a lack of knowledge, a lack of resources, practical barriers, patient barriers, and healthcare professional's being unsure it is their role to refer. The second entitled "General Perceptions of Pulmonary Rehabilitation", highlighted ways in which the programme could be improved, the perceived positives and negatives, facilitators to referral, and perceptions of patients referred.Conclusions: This is the first systematic review to encompass the perceptions of healthcare professionals with ability to refer and those who deliver pulmonary rehabilitation. Referral was low, highlighting potential influencing factors such as a lack of programme knowledge, pulmonary rehabilitation beliefs, and communication skills. Given inclusion of studies from multiple geographical locations, the findings provide implications for any healthcare system that develops and delivers pulmonary rehabilitation. With respect of a lack of referrals to the programme, further research should highlight healthcare professionals' perceptions of the referral process, and the views of those in Secondary Care.Implications for rehabilitationChronic obstructive pulmonary disease:•Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven cost-effective management strategy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which reduces associated hospital admissions and increases quality of life.•Due to a lack of knowledge and negative perceptions surrounding pulmonary rehabilitation, further training and education is required for healthcare professionals surrounding non-pharmacological management strategies.•Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes should consider ways to increase awareness of the service amongst those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.•Those delivering pulmonary rehabilitation should consider ways to support healthcare professionals referring to the programme.

A Scoping Review on How to Make Hospitals health Literate Healthcare Organizations

The concept of health literacy is increasingly being recognised as not just an individual trait, but also as a characteristic related to families, communities, and organisations providing health and social services. The aim of this study is to identify and describe, through a scoping review approach, the characteristics and the interventions that make a hospital a health literate health care organisation (HLHO), in order to develop an integrated conceptual model. We followed Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage scoping review framework, refined with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, to identify the research questions, identify relevant studies, select studies, chart the data, and collate and summarize the data. Of the 1532 titles and abstracts screened, 106 were included. Few studies have explored the effect of environmental support on health professionals, and few outcomes related to staff satisfaction/perception of helpfulness have been reported. The most common types of interventions and outcomes were related to the patients. The logical framework developed can be an effective tool to define and understand priorities and related consequences, thereby helping researchers and policymakers to have a wider vision and a more homogeneous approach to health literacy and its use and promotion in healthcare organizations.

Multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have discussed the benefits of multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care. However, what remains unclear is how collaboration is undertaken in a multidisciplinary manner in concrete terms.

OBJECTIVE

To identify how multidisciplinary teams in primary care collaborate, in regards to the professionals involved in the teams and the collaborative activities that take place, and determine whether these characteristics and practices are present across disciplines and whether collaboration affects clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of past research, using the MEDLINE, ScienceDirect and Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

Four types of team composition were identified: specialized teams, highly multidisciplinary teams, doctor-nurse-pharmacist triad and physician-nurse centred teams. Four types of collaboration within teams were identified: co-located collaboration, non-hierarchical collaboration, collaboration through shared consultations and collaboration via referral and counter-referral. Two combinations were commonly repeated: non-hierarchical collaboration in highly multidisciplinary teams and co-located collaboration in specialist teams. Fifty-two per cent of articles reported positive results when comparing collaboration against the non-collaborative alternative, whereas 16% showed no difference and 32% did not present a comparison.

CONCLUSION

Overall, collaboration was found to be positive or neutral in every study that compared collaboration with a non-collaborative alternative. A collaboration typology based on objective measures was devised, in contrast to typologies that involve interviews, perception-based questionnaires and other subjective instruments.

Building COPD care on shaky ground: a mixed methods study from Swedish primary care professional perspective

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a public health problem. Interprofessional collaboration and health promotion interventions such as exercise training, education, and behaviour change are cost effective, have a good effect on health status, and are recommended in COPD treatment guidelines. There is a gap between the guidelines and the healthcare available to people with COPD.

The aim of this study was to increase the understanding of what shapes the provision of primary care services to people with COPD and what healthcare is offered to them from the perspective of healthcare professionals and managers.

Methods

The study was conducted in primary care in a Swedish county council during January to June 2015. A qualitatively driven mixed methods design was applied. Qualitative and quantitative findings were merged into a joint analysis. Interviews for the qualitative component were performed with healthcare professionals (n = 14) from two primary care centres and analysed with qualitative content analysis. Two questionnaires were used for the quantitative component; one was answered by senior managers or COPD nurses at primary care centres (n = 26) in the county council and the other was answered by healthcare professionals (n = 18) at two primary care centres. The questionnaire data were analysed with descriptive statistics.

Results

The analysis gave rise to the overarching theme building COPD care on shaky ground. This represents professionals driven to build a supportive COPD care on ‘shaky’ organisational ground in a fragmented and non-compliant healthcare organisation. The shaky ground is further represented by uninformed patients with a complex disease, which is surrounded with shame. The professionals are autonomous and pragmatic, used to taking responsibility for their work, and with limited involvement of the management. They wish to provide high quality COPD care with interprofessional collaboration, but they lack competence and are hindered by inadequate routines and lack of resources.

Conclusions

There is a gap between COPD treatment guidelines and the healthcare that is provided in primary care. To facilitate implementation of the guidelines several actions are needed, such as further training for professionals, additional resources, and improved organisational structure for interprofessional collaboration and patient education.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2393-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.