Supporting Practices to Adopt Registry-Based Care (SPARC): protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Attitudes of primary healthcare chief physicians towards research in Finland - a national study

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate the views of chief physicians in Finnish primary healthcare health centres (HCs) on the existing research capacity of their centres, their attitudes to practice-based research network activity, and research topics of interest to them.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING

Finnish HCs.

SUBJECTS

Chief physicians in Finnish HCs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We used a questionnaire that included five-point Likert scales and multiple choice and open-ended questions to identify the chief physician's profile, the HC content, the attitudes of chief physicians towards engagement in research, research topics of interest to them, and factors that may influence their motivation. Descriptive methods were used for the analysis of the quantitative data, while the qualitative data were processed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

There was a relatively good representation of all hospital districts. One-third of HCs had at least one person doing research, and 61% of chief physicians would support research in their setting. Their stimulus for research was primarily testing new therapies, protocols, and care processes, as well as effectiveness and healthcare improvement. The expected benefits that motivate engagement in Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are evidence-based practice and raised professional capacity and profile of the HC.

CONCLUSIONS

Chief physicians regard research as an elementary part of the development of primary care practices and health policy. Their motivation to engage in PBRN activity is determined by the relevance of the research to their interests and the management of competing priorities and resource limitations.

Mobilizing registry data for quality improvement: A convergent mixed-methods analysis and application to spinal cord injury

Introduction

The rising prevalence of complex chronic conditions and growing intricacies of healthcare systems emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary partnerships to advance coordination and quality of rehabilitation care. Registry databases are increasingly used for clinical monitoring and quality improvement (QI) of health system change. Currently, it is unclear how interdisciplinary partnerships can best mobilize registry data to support QI across care settings for complex chronic conditions.

Purpose

We employed spinal cord injury (SCI) as a case study of a highly disruptive and debilitating complex chronic condition, with existing registry data that is underutilized for QI. We aimed to compare and converge evidence from previous reports and multi-disciplinary experts in order to outline the major elements of a strategy to effectively mobilize registry data for QI of care for complex chronic conditions.

Methods

This study used a convergent parallel-database variant mixed design, whereby findings from a systematic review and a qualitative exploration were analyzed independently and then simultaneously. The scoping review used a three-stage process to review 282 records, which resulted in 28 articles reviewed for analysis. Concurrent interviews were conducted with multidisciplinary-stakeholders, including leadership from condition-specific national registries, members of national SCI communities, leadership from SCI community organizations, and a person with lived experience of SCI. Descriptive analysis was used for the scoping review and qualitative description for stakeholder interviews.

Results

There were 28 articles included in the scoping review and 11 multidisciplinary-stakeholders in the semi-structured interviews. The integration of the results allowed the identification of three key learnings to enhance the successful design and use of registry data to inform the planning and development of a QI initiative: enhance utility and reliability of registry data; form a steering committee lead by clinical champions; and design effective, feasible, and sustainable QI initiatives.

Conclusion

This study highlights the importance of interdisciplinary partnerships to support QI of care for persons with complex conditions. It provides practical strategies to determine mutual priorities that promote implementation and sustained use of registry data to inform QI. Learnings from this work could enhance interdisciplinary collaboration to support QI of care for rehabilitation for persons with complex chronic conditions.

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to produce actionable findings: a rapid-cycle evaluation approach to improving implementation

Background

Much research does not address the practical needs of stakeholders responsible for introducing health care delivery interventions into organizations working to achieve better outcomes. In this article, we present an approach to using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide systematic research that supports rapid-cycle evaluation of the implementation of health care delivery interventions and produces actionable evaluation findings intended to improve implementation in a timely manner.

Methods

To present our approach, we describe a formative cross-case qualitative investigation of 21 primary care practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative, a multi-payer supported primary care practice transformation intervention led by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Qualitative data include observational field notes and semi-structured interviews with primary care practice leadership, clinicians, and administrative and medical support staff. We use intervention-specific codes, and CFIR constructs to reduce and organize the data to support cross-case analysis of patterns of barriers and facilitators relating to different CPC components.

Results

Using the CFIR to guide data collection, coding, analysis, and reporting of findings supported a systematic, comprehensive, and timely understanding of barriers and facilitators to practice transformation. Our approach to using the CFIR produced actionable findings for improving implementation effectiveness during this initiative and for identifying improvements to implementation strategies for future practice transformation efforts.

Conclusions

The CFIR is a useful tool for guiding rapid-cycle evaluation of the implementation of practice transformation initiatives. Using the approach described here, we systematically identified where adjustments and refinements to the intervention could be made in the second year of the 4-year intervention. We think the approach we describe has broad application and encourage others to use the CFIR, along with intervention-specific codes, to guide the efficient and rigorous analysis of rich qualitative data.

Trial registration

NCT02318108

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0550-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.