Developing, delivering and evaluating primary mental health care: the co-production of a new complex intervention

The contribution of a complex systems-based approach to progressive social resilience

The use of resilience in social practice has evolved from a theoretical framework at the intersection between individuals and their social ecology. Critics argue this theory still results in policies and practices that are too individualised, with the potential for negative social consequences. This paper further critiques contemporary understanding of resilience theory and its application. It juxtaposes complex systems theory with a social inequalities oriented resilience practice. This provides a paradoxical approach. It is acknowledged that state and public policy decisions and actions can be anti-resilient, undermining community and social resilience that already exists in the form of social relationships, self-organisation and co-production. Nevertheless, collective social resilience also illustrates the potential of local and service user organisations to contribute to an overall transformational change process.

Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components

BACKGROUND

Co-creation is seen as a way to ensure all relevant needs and perspectives are included and to increase its potential for beneficial effects and uptake process evaluation is crucial. However, existing process evaluation frameworks have been built on practices characterised by top-down developed and implemented interventions and may be limited in capturing essential elements of co-creation. This study aims to provide a review of studies planning and/or conducting a process evaluation of public health interventions adopting a co-creation approach and aims to derive assessed process evaluation components, used frameworks and insights into formative and/or participatory evaluation.

METHODS

We searched for studies on Scopus and the Health CASCADE Co-Creation Database. Co-authors performed a concept-mapping exercise to create a set of overarching dimensions for clustering the identified process evaluation components.

RESULTS

54 studies were included. Conceptualisation of process evaluation included in studies concerned intervention implementation, outcome evaluation, mechanisms of impact, context and the co-creation process. 22 studies (40%) referenced ten existing process evaluation or evaluation frameworks and most referenced were the frameworks developed by Moore et al (14%), Saunders et al (5%), Steckler and Linnan (5%) and Nielsen and Randall (5%).38 process evaluation components were identified, with a focus on participation (48%), context (40%), the experience of co-creators (29%), impact (29%), satisfaction (25%) and fidelity (24%).13 studies (24%) conducted formative evaluation, 37 (68%) conducted summative evaluation and 2 studies (3%) conducted participatory evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The broad spectrum of process evaluation components addressed in co-creation studies, covering both the evaluation of the co-creation process and the intervention implementation, highlights the need for a process evaluation tailored to co-creation studies. This work provides an overview of process evaluation components, clustered in dimensions and reflections which researchers and practitioners can use to plan a process evaluation of a co-creation process and intervention.

Evaluating Success and Challenges of a Primary Care Youth Mental Health Programme Using Complexity, Implementation Science, and Appreciative Inquiry

Background Using an innovative framework of complexity and implementation science, with underpinning core values of appreciative inquiry (CIS-A), this paper describes the evaluation of a pilot service in New Zealand aiming to deliver integrated psychological therapy services within primary care, to young people (aged 18-24) experiencing mild to moderate mental distress. Method Using mixed quantitative and qualitative methods and multiple data sources, there was a strong focus on local innovation and co-design with service users, young people and multiple care providers. Data is drawn from service users, stakeholders and providers of the service in three areas of the lower North Island of New Zealand.  Results The Piki pilot provided a significant and innovative enhancement of mental health care to this population. The service supported 5307 individuals with a range of therapy options, with the majority having between one and three therapy sessions. From 730 service users who completed a survey, 591 (81%) were 'very satisfied' with the service provided. The CIS-A framework was used successfully to provide rapid feedback and encourage adaptation to evolving issues. These included unexpected workload pressures, changes to therapy delivery, the integration of co-design and prioritising the needs of vulnerable groups. There was a successful incorporation of youth/service user input to co-design the programme, introduction of a peer-to-peer support service, and integration of a digital resource platform. The framework was also used to address challenges encountered and to support necessary adaptations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Conclusions We describe the use of an embedded evaluation to support and inform the implementation of a novel and innovative youth mental health programme. Complexity and implementation science, underpinned by the core values of appreciative inquiry (CIS-A), were successfully utilised providing potential learning that can be applied locally, nationally and internationally. This study has a focus on youth mental health but the principles and utility of applying a complexity and implementation science approach have application in many different health care settings. The use of a framework such as CIS-A can support complex innovation and implementation and can be used to enable rapid course correction and turn 'hindsight to foresight'.

Development of the Preferred Components for Co-Design in Research Guideline and Checklist: Protocol for a Scoping Review and a Modified Delphi Process

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that co-design can lead to more engaging, acceptable, relevant, feasible, and even effective interventions. However, no guidance is provided on the specific designs and associated methods or methodologies involved in the process. We propose the development of the Preferred Components for Co-design in Research (PRECISE) guideline to enhance the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting co-design studies used to develop complex health interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to develop the first iteration of the PRECISE guideline. The purpose of the PRECISE guideline is to improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reporting on studies that use co-design to develop complex health interventions.

METHODS

The aim will be achieved by addressing the following objectives: to review and synthesize the literature on the models, theories, and frameworks used in the co-design of complex health interventions to identify their common elements (components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes); and by using the results of the scoping review, prioritize the co-design components, values or principles, associated methods and methodologies, and outcomes to be included in the PRECISE guideline.

RESULTS

The project has been funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

CONCLUSIONS

The collective results of this project will lead to a ready-to-implement PRECISE guideline that outlines a minimum set of items to include when reporting the co-design of complex health interventions. The PRECISE guideline will improve the consistency, transparency, and quality of reports of studies. Additionally, it will include guidance on how to enact or enable the values or principles of co-design for meaningful and collaborative solutions (interventions). PRECISE might also be used by peer reviewers and editors to improve the review of manuscripts involving co-design. Ultimately, the PRECISE guideline will facilitate more efficient use of new results about complex health intervention development and bring better returns on research investments.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/50463.

Systematic Review of Contemporary Theories Used for Co-creation, Co-design and Co-production in Public Health

BACKGROUND

There is a need to systematically identify and summarize the contemporary theories and theoretical frameworks used for co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health research.

METHODS

The reporting of this systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Given substantial interest in and application of co-creation, co-design and co-production, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and APA PsycINFO from 2012 to March-April 2022. A quality assessment and data extraction for theory content was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 3763 unique references identified through the comprehensive search strategy, 10 articles were included in the review: four articles named co-creation, two articles named co-creation and co-design, two articles named co-production and co-design, and two articles named co-design. Empowerment Theory was employed by two articles, whereas other theories (n = 5) or frameworks (n = 3) were employed by one article each. For the quality assessment, eight articles received a strong rating and two articles received a moderate rating.

CONCLUSION

There is little indication of theory applications for the approaches of co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health since 2012, given 10 articles were included in this review. Yet, the theories described in these 10 articles can be useful for developing such co-approaches in future public health research.

Case managers' reflections of a brief case management intervention in Canada

Introduction

As demand for intensive case management services continues to outpace supply, community mental health agencies in Toronto, Ontario, introduced Short-Term Case Management (STCM).

Objective

This study sought to explore case managers' perspectives and experiences with this new service delivery model.

Methods

Focus groups were conducted with twenty-one case managers, and transcripts analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Emerging themes suggest that despite embracing a recovery approach, case managers expressed mixed views on the acceptability and appropriateness of this service delivery model as an intervention.

Conclusion

The ideal population for this intervention are adults with mental health issues in need of system navigation, and those motivated to address their goals. Further research is needed to establish fidelity criteria.

Using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to develop an intervention to improve referral and uptake rates for self-management education for patients with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care

Background

Referral and uptake rates of structured self-management education (SSME) for Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in the UK are variable and relatively low. Research has documented contributing factors at patient, practitioner and organisational levels. We report a project to develop an intervention to improve referral to and uptake of SSME, involving an integrative synthesis of existing datasets and stakeholder consultation and using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as a flexible framework to inform the development process.

Methods

A three-phase mixed-methods development process involved: (1) synthesis of existing evidence; (2) stakeholder consultation; and (3) intervention design. The first phase included a secondary analysis of data from existing studies of T2DM SSME programmes and a systematic review of the literature on application of NPT in primary care. Influences on referral and uptake of diabetes SSME were identified, along with insights into implementation processes, using NPT constructs to inform analysis. This gave rise to desirable attributes for an intervention to improve uptake of SSME. The second phase involved engaging with stakeholders to prioritise and then rank these attributes, and develop a list of associated resources needed for delivery. The third phase addressed intervention design. It involved translating the ranked attributes into essential components of a complex intervention, and then further refinement of components and associated resources.

Results

In phase 1, synthesised analysis of 64 transcripts and 23 articles generated a longlist of 46 attributes of an embedded SSME, mapped into four overarching domains: valued, integrated, permeable and effectively delivered. Stakeholder engagement in phase 2 progressed this to a priority ranked list of 11. In phase 3, four essential components attending to the prioritised attributes and forming the basis of the intervention were identified: 1) a clear marketing strategy for SSME; 2) a user friendly and effective referral pathway; 3) new/amended professional roles; and 4) a toolkit of resources.

Conclusions

NPT provides a flexible framework for synthesising evidence for the purpose of developing a complex intervention designed to increase and reduce variation in uptake to SSME programmes in primary care settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08553-7.

The use of co-production, co-design and co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a systematic review

Background

Knowledge mobilisation is a term used in healthcare research to describe the process of generating, sharing and using evidence. ‘Co’approaches, such as co-production, co-design and co-creation, have been proposed as a way of overcoming the knowledge to practice gap. There is a need to understand why researchers choose to adopt these approaches, how they achieve knowledge mobilisation in the management of health conditions, and the extent to which knowledge mobilisation is accomplished.

Methods

Studies that explicitly used the terms co-production, co-design or co-creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions were included. Web of Science, EMBASE via OvidSP, MEDLINE via OvidSP and CINHAL via EBSCO databases were searched up to April 2021. Quality assessment was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative quality assessment checklist. Pluye and Hong’s seven steps for mixed studies reviews were followed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis.

Results

Twenty four international studies were included. These were qualitative studies, case studies and study protocols. Key aspects of ‘co’approaches were bringing people together as active and equal partners, valuing all types of knowledge, using creative approaches to understand and solve problems, and using iterative prototyping techniques. Authors articulated mechanisms of action that included developing a shared understanding, identifying and meeting needs, giving everyone a voice and sense of ownership, and creating trust and confidence. They believed these mechanisms could produce interventions that were relevant and acceptable to stakeholders, more useable and more likely to be implemented in healthcare. Varied activities were used to promote these mechanisms such as interviews and creative workshops. There appeared to be a lack of robust evaluation of the interventions produced so little evidence in this review that ‘co’approaches improved the management of health conditions.

Conclusion

Those using ‘co’approaches believed that they could achieve knowledge mobilisation through a number of mechanisms, but there was no evidence that these led to improved health. The framework of key aspects and mechanisms of ‘co’approaches developed here may help researchers to meet the principles of these approaches. There is a need for robust evaluation to identify whether ‘co’approaches produce improved health outcomes.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020187463.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08079-y.

Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual needs and circumstances. This may involve stopping medicines (deprescribing) but patients and clinicians report uncertainty on how best to do this. The TAILOR medication synthesis sought to help understand how best to support deprescribing in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

OBJECTIVES

We identified two research questions: (1) what evidence exists to support the safe, effective and acceptable stopping of medication in this patient group, and (2) how, for whom and in what contexts can safe and effective tailoring of clinical decisions related to medication use work to produce desired outcomes? We thus described three objectives: (1) to undertake a robust scoping review of the literature on stopping medicines in this group to describe what is being done, where and for what effect; (2) to undertake a realist synthesis review to construct a programme theory that describes 'best practice' and helps explain the heterogeneity of deprescribing approaches; and (3) to translate findings into resources to support tailored prescribing in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Experienced information specialists conducted comprehensive searches in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and Google Scholar (targeted searches).

REVIEW METHODS

The scoping review followed the five steps described by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for conducting a scoping review. The realist review followed the methodological and publication standards for realist reviews described by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) group. Patient and public involvement partners ensured that our analysis retained a patient-centred focus.

RESULTS

Our scoping review identified 9528 abstracts: 8847 were removed at screening and 662 were removed at full-text review. This left 20 studies (published between 2009 and 2020) that examined the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of deprescribing in adults (aged ≥ 50 years) with polypharmacy (five or more prescribed medications) and multimorbidity (two or more conditions). Our analysis revealed that deprescribing under research conditions mapped well to expert guidance on the steps needed for good clinical practice. Our findings offer evidence-informed support to clinicians regarding the safety, clinician acceptability and potential effectiveness of clinical decision-making that demonstrates a structured approach to deprescribing decisions. Our realist review identified 2602 studies with 119 included in the final analysis. The analysis outlined 34 context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the knowledge work of tailored prescribing under eight headings related to organisational, health-care professional and patient factors, and interventions to improve deprescribing. We conclude that robust tailored deprescribing requires attention to providing an enabling infrastructure, access to data, tailored explanations and trust.

LIMITATIONS

Strict application of our definition of multimorbidity during the scoping review may have had an impact on the relevance of the review to clinical practice. The realist review was limited by the data (evidence) available.

CONCLUSIONS

Our combined reviews recognise deprescribing as a complex intervention and provide support for the safety of structured approaches to deprescribing, but also highlight the need to integrate patient-centred and contextual factors into best practice models.

FUTURE WORK

The TAILOR study has informed new funded research tackling deprescribing in sleep management, and professional education. Further research is being developed to implement tailored prescribing into routine primary care practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107544 and PROSPERO CRD42018104176.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The implementation and validation of the NoMAD during a complex primary care intervention

Background

Normalization process theory (NPT) has been widely used to better understand how new interventions are implemented and embedded. The NoMAD (Normalization Measurement Development questionnaire) is a 23-item NPT instrument based on NPT. As the NoMAD is a relatively new instrument, the objectives of this paper are: to describe the experience of implementing the NoMAD, to describe it being used as a feedback mechanism to gain insight into the normalization process of a complex health intervention, and to further explore the psychometric properties of the instrument.

Methods

Health TAPESTRY was implemented in six Family Health Teams (total of seven sites) across Ontario. Healthcare team members at each site were invited to complete the NoMAD, and three general questions about normalization, six times over a 12-month period. Each site was then provided a visual traffic light summary (TLS) reflecting the implementation of the Health TAPESTRY. The internal consistency of each sub-scale and validity of the NoMAD were assessed. Learnings from the implementation of the NoMAD and subsequent feedback mechanism (TLS) are reported descriptively.

Results

In total, 56 diverse health care team members from six implementation sites completed the NoMAD. Each used it at least once during the 12-month study period. The implementation of the NoMAD and TLS was time consuming to do with multiple collection (and feedback) points. Most (60%) internal consistency values of the four subscales (pooled across site) across each collection point were satisfactory. All correlations were positive, and most (86%) were statistically significant among NoMAD subscales. All but one correlation between the NoMAD subscales and the general questions were positive, and most (72%) were significant. Generally, scores on the subscales were higher at 12-month than baseline, albeit did not follow a linear pattern of change across implementation. Generally, scores were higher for experienced sites compared to first-time implementors.

Conclusion

Our experience would suggest fewer collection points; three timepoints spaced out by several months are adequate, if repeated administration of the NoMAD is used for feedback loops. We provide additional evidence of the psychometric properties of the NoMAD.

Trial Registration

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03397836.

Advance care planning conversations in primary care: a quality improvement project using the Serious Illness Care Program

Background

Advance care planning (ACP) conversations are associated with improved end-of-life healthcare outcomes and patients want to engage in ACP with their healthcare providers. Despite this, ACP conversations rarely occur in primary care settings. The objective of this study was to implement ACP through adapted Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) training sessions, and to understand primary care provider (PCP) perceptions of implementing ACP into practice.

Methods

We conducted a quality improvement project guided by the Normalization Process Theory (NPT), in an interprofessional academic family medicine group in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. NPT is an explanatory model that delineates the processes by which organizations implement and integrate new work. PCPs (physicians, family medicine residents, and allied health care providers), completed pre- and post-SICP self-assessments evaluating training effectiveness, a survey evaluating program implementability and sustainability, and semi-structured qualitative interviews to elaborate on barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for successful implementation. Descriptive statistics and pre-post differences (Wilcoxon Sign-Rank test) were used to analyze surveys and thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative interviews.

Results

30 PCPs participated in SICP training and completed self-assessments, 14 completed NoMAD surveys, and 7 were interviewed. There were reported improvements in ACP confidence and skills. NoMAD surveys reported mixed opinions towards ACP implementation, specifically concerning colleagues’ abilities to conduct ACP and patients’ abilities to participate in ACP. Physicians discussed busy clinical schedules, lack of patient preparedness, and continued discomfort or lack of confidence in having ACP conversations. Allied health professionals discussed difficulty sharing patient prognosis and identification of appropriate patients as barriers.

Conclusions

Training in ACP conversations improved PCPs’ individual perceived abilities, but discomfort and other barriers were identified. Future iterations will require a more systematic process to support the implementation of ACP into regular practice, in addition to addressing knowledge and skill gaps.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00817-z.

The APEC Digital Hub-WONCA Collaborative Framework on Integration of Mental Health into Primary Care in the Asia Pacific

Mental ill health affects individual well-being and national economic prosperity and makes up a substantial portion of the burden of disease globally, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Integrating mental health into primary care is widely considered a key strategy to improve access to mental health care. Integration, however, is a complex process that needs to be addressed at multiple levels. A collaboration between the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Digital Hub for Mental Health and the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA) is described in this paper, which outlines a framework and next steps to improve the mental health of communities in APEC economies. This paper notes gaps related to the integration of mental health into primary care across the region and identifies enablers and current best practices from several APEC economies. The potential of digital technology to benefit primary mental health care for populations in the APEC region, including delivery of training programs for healthcare staff and access to resources for patients, is described. Finally, key next steps are proposed to promote enhanced integration into primary care and improve mental health care throughout the APEC region.

Repurposing NGO data for better research outcomes: a scoping review of the use and secondary analysis of NGO data in health policy and systems research

Background

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) collect and generate vast amounts of potentially rich data, most of which are not used for research purposes. Secondary analysis of NGO data (their use and analysis in a study for which they were not originally collected) presents an important but largely unrealised opportunity to provide new research insights in critical areas, including the evaluation of health policy and programmes.

Methods

A scoping review of the published literature was performed to identify the extent to which secondary analysis of NGO data has been used in health policy and systems research (HPSR). A tiered analytical approach provided a comprehensive overview and descriptive analyses of the studies that (1) used data produced or collected by or about NGOs; (2) performed secondary analysis of the NGO data (beyond the use of an NGO report as a supporting reference); and (3) analysed NGO-collected clinical data.

Results

Of the 156 studies that performed secondary analysis of NGO-produced or collected data, 64% (n = 100) used NGO-produced reports (mostly to a limited extent, as a contextual reference or to critique NGO activities) and 8% (n = 13) analysed NGO-collected clinical data. Of these studies, 55% (n = 86) investigated service delivery research topics and 48% (n = 51) were undertaken in developing countries and 17% (n = 27) in both developing and developed countries. NGOs were authors or co-authors of 26% of the studies. NGO-collected clinical data enabled HPSR within marginalised groups (e.g. migrants, people in conflict-affected areas), albeit with some limitations such as inconsistent and missing data.

Conclusion

We found evidence that NGO-collected and produced data are most commonly perceived as a source of supporting evidence for HPSR and not as primary source data. However, these data can facilitate research in under-researched marginalised groups and in contexts that are hard to reach by academics such as conflict-affected areas. NGO–academic collaboration could help address issues of NGO data quality to facilitate their more widespread use in research. The use of NGO data use could enable relevant and timely research in the areas of programme evaluation and health policy and advocacy to improve health and reduce health inequalities, especially in marginalised groups and developing countries.

Application of normalisation process theory in understanding implementation processes in primary care settings in the UK: a systematic review

Background

Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) provides a framework to understand how interventions are implemented, embedded, and integrated in healthcare settings. Previous reviews of published literature have examined the application of NPT across international healthcare and reports its benefits. However, given the distinctive clinical function, organisational arrangements and the increasing management of people with a wide variety of conditions in primary care settings in the United Kingdom, it is important to understand how and why authors utilise and reflect on NPT in such settings to inform and evaluate implementation processes.

Methods

A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature using NPT in primary care settings in the United Kingdom (UK) was conducted. Eight electronic databases were searched using replicable methods to identify articles published between January 2012 and April 2018. Data were analysed using a framework approach.

Results

Thirty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Researchers utilised NPT to explore the implementation of interventions, targeting a wide range of health services and conditions, within primary care settings in the UK. NPT was mostly applied qualitatively; however, a small number of researchers have moved towards mixed and quantitative methods. Some variation was observed in the use of NPT constructs and sub-constructs, and whether and how researchers undertook modification to make them more relevant to the implementation process and multiple stakeholder perspectives.

Conclusion

NPT provides a flexible framework for the development and evaluation of complex healthcare interventions in UK primary care settings. This review updates the literature on NPT use and indicates that its application is well suited to these environments, particularly in supporting patients with long-term conditions and co-morbidities. We recommend future research explores the receipt of interventions by multiple stakeholders and suggest that authors reflect on justifications for using NPT in their reporting.

Instruments measuring interprofessional collaboration in healthcare - a scoping review

Worldwide there is growing understanding of the importance of interprofessional collaboration in providing well-functioning healthcare. However, little is known about how interprofessional collaboration can be measured between different health-care professionals. In this review, we aim to fill this gap, by identifying and analyzing the existing instruments measuring interprofessional collaboration in healthcare. A scoping review design was applied. A systematic literature search of two electronic databases, Medline (PubMed) and CINAHL, was conducted in 03/2018. The search yielded 1020 studies, of which 35 were selected for the review. The data were analyzed by content analysis. In total, 29 instruments measuring interprofessional collaboration were found. Interprofessional collaboration was measured predominantly between nurses and physicians with different instruments in various health-care settings. Psychometric testing was unsystematic, focusing predominantly on construct and content validity and internal consistency, thus further validation studies with comprehensive testing are suggested. The results of this review can be used to select instruments measuring interprofessional collaboration in practice or research. Future research is needed to strengthen the evidence of reliability and validity of these instruments.

Primary care redesign for person-centred care: delivering an international generalist revolution

Person-centred primary care is a priority for patients, healthcare practitioners and health policy. Despite this, data suggest person-centred care is still not consistently achieved - and indeed, that in some areas, care may be worsening. Whole-person care is the expertise of the medical generalist - an area of clinical practice that has been neglected by health policy for some time. It is internationally recognised that there is a need to rebalance specialist and generalist primary care. Drawing on 15 years of scholarship within the science of medical generalism (the expertise of whole-person medical care), this discussion paper outlines a three-tiered approach to primary care redesign; describing changes needed at the level of the consultation, practice set up and strategic planning. The changing needs of patients living with complex chronic illness has already started a revolution in our understanding of healthcare systems. This paper outlines work to support that paradigm shift from disease-focused to person-focused primary healthcare.

Implementing change in primary care practice: lessons from a mixed-methods evaluation of a frailty initiative

Background

The NHS is facing increasing needs from an aging population, which is acutely visible in the emerging problem of frailty. There is growing evidence describing new models of care for people living with frailty, but a lack of evidence on successful implementation of these complex interventions at the practice level.

Aim

This study aimed to determine what factors enable or prevent implementation of a whole-system, complex intervention for managing frailty (the PACT initiative) in the UK primary care setting.

Design & setting

A mixed-methods evaluation study undertaken within a large clinical commissioning group (CCG). Design and analysis was informed by normalisation process theory (NPT).

Method

Data collection from six sites included: observation of delivery, interviews with staff, and an online survey. NPT-informed analysis sought to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of change.

Results

Seven themes were identified. PACT was valued by professionals and patients but a lack of clarity on its aims was identified as a barrier to implementation. Successful implementation relied on champions pushing the work forward, and dealing with unanticipated resistance. Contracts focused on delivery of service outcomes, but these were sometimes at odds with professional priorities. Implementation followed evidence-informed rather than evidence-based practice, requiring redesign of the intervention and potentially created a new body of knowledge on managing frailty.

Conclusion

Successful implementation of complex interventions in primary care need inbuilt capacity for flexibility and adaptability, requiring expertise as well as evidence. Professionals need to be supported to translate innovative practice into practice-based evidence.

Using normalisation process theory to evaluate the implementation of a complex intervention to embed the surgical safety checklist

BACKGROUND

The surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) was introduced in 2008 to improve teamwork and reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with surgery. Although mandated in many health care institutions around the world, challenges in implementation of the SSC continue. To use Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to help understand how/why implementation of a complex intervention coined Pass The Baton (PTB) could help explain what facets of the Surgical Safety Checklist use led to its' integration in practice, while others were not.

METHODS

A longitudinal multi-method study using survey and interviews was undertaken. Implementation of PTB involved; change champions, audit and feedback, education and prompts. Following implementation, surgical teams were surveyed using the NOrmalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) and subsequently interviewed to explore the impact of PTB on their use of the checklist at 6 and 12 months respectively. Respondents' self-reported perceptions of implementation of PTB was explained using the four NPT constructs; coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Interview data were coded inductively and content analysed using a framework derived from NPT.

RESULTS

The NoMAD survey response rate was 59/150 (39.3%). Many (45/59, 77.6%) survey respondents saw the value in PTB, while 50/59 (86.2%) would continue to use it; 45/59 (77.6%) believed that PTB could easily be integrated into existing workflows, and 48/59 (82.8%) thought that feedback could improve PTB in the future. A total of 8 interviews were completed with 26 surgical team members. Nurses and physicians held mixed views towards coherence while buy-in and participation relied on individuals' investment in the implementation process and the ability to modify PTB. Participants generally recognised the benefit and value of using PTB in the ongoing implementation the checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Workarounds and flexible co-construction in implementation designed to improve team communications in surgery may facilitate their normalisation in practice.

When two worlds collide: critical reflection on co-production

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings from reflexive data collection on the evolving co-production research relationship between the two “worlds” of community and academia: people with lived experience and their community intermediaries and academic researchers. It reports analysis of reflections on experience as the different partners explore and evaluate their own experiences of co-productive research within the context of substance use recovery co-production research.

Design/methodology/approach

The research uses reflexive data from perspectives of an intermediary community partner, academic partners, and community researchers on experiences of a series of co-productive research projects. The aim is to identify thematic features of the co-productive experiences from different positions and through the process of adaptation to a co-productive relationship.

Findings

This paper outlines what has been learnt from the experience of co-production and what has “worked” for community and academic partners; around the nature of co-production, barriers to performance, and its value to participants and the wider recovery research agenda.

Originality/value

This paper reports a unique perspective on a developing methodology in health and social care, contributing to a growing body of knowledge pertaining to experiences of co-production research.

Identifying enablers and barriers to individually tailored prescribing: a survey of healthcare professionals in the UK

Background

Many people now take multiple medications on a long-term basis to manage health conditions. Optimising the benefit of such polypharmacy requires tailoring of medicines use to the needs and circumstances of individuals. However, professionals report barriers to achieving this in practice. In this study, we examined health professionals’ perceptions of enablers and barriers to delivering individually tailored prescribing.

Methods

Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) informed an on-line survey of health professionals’ views of enablers and barriers to implementation of Individually Tailored Prescribing (ITP) of medicines. Links to the survey were sent out through known professional networks using a convenience/snowball sampling approach. Survey questions sought to identify perceptions of supports/barriers for ITP within the four domains of work described by NPT: sense making, engagement, action and monitoring. Analysis followed the framework approach developed in our previous work.

Results

Four hundred and nineteen responses were included in the final analysis (67.3% female, 32.7% male; 52.7% nurse prescribers, 19.8% pharmacists and 21.8% GPs). Almost half (44.9%) were experienced practitioners (16+ years in practice); around one third reported already routinely offering ITP to their patients. GPs were the group least likely to recognise this as consistent usual practice. Findings revealed general support for the principles of ITP but significant variation and inconsistency in understanding and implementation in practice. Our findings reveal four key implications for practice: the need to raise understanding of ITP as a legitimate part of professional practice; to prioritise the work of ITP within the range of individual professional activity; to improve the consistency of training and support for interpretive practice; and to review the impact of formal and informal monitoring processes on practice.

Conclusion

The findings will inform the ongoing development of our new complex intervention (PRIME Prescribing) to support the individual tailoring of medicines needed to address problematic polypharmacy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-017-0705-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Knowledge mobilisation for policy development: implementing systems approaches through participatory dynamic simulation modelling

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based decision-making is an important foundation for health policy and service planning decisions, yet there remain challenges in ensuring that the many forms of available evidence are considered when decisions are being made. Mobilising knowledge for policy and practice is an emergent process, and one that is highly relational, often messy and profoundly context dependent. Systems approaches, such as dynamic simulation modelling can be used to examine both complex health issues and the context in which they are embedded, and to develop decision support tools.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reports on the novel use of participatory simulation modelling as a knowledge mobilisation tool in Australian real-world policy settings. We describe how this approach combined systems science methodology and some of the core elements of knowledge mobilisation best practice. We describe the strategies adopted in three case studies to address both technical and socio-political issues, and compile the experiential lessons derived. Finally, we consider the implications of these knowledge mobilisation case studies and provide evidence for the feasibility of this approach in policy development settings.

CONCLUSION

Participatory dynamic simulation modelling builds on contemporary knowledge mobilisation approaches for health stakeholders to collaborate and explore policy and health service scenarios for priority public health topics. The participatory methods place the decision-maker at the centre of the process and embed deliberative methods and co-production of knowledge. The simulation models function as health policy and programme dynamic decision support tools that integrate diverse forms of evidence, including research evidence, expert knowledge and localised contextual information. Further research is underway to determine the impact of these methods on health service decision-making.