Practice facilitation for improving cardiovascular care: secondary evaluation of a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial using population-based administrative data

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Coaching on Process Outcomes in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A culture of improvement is an important feature of high-quality health care systems. However, health care teams often need support to translate quality improvement (QI) activities into practice. One method of support is consultation from a QI coach. The literature suggests that coaching interventions have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. However, the impact of coaching on specific process outcomes, like adoption of clinical care activities, is unknown. Identifying the process outcomes for which QI coaching is most effective could provide specific guidance on when to employ this strategy.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021. Studies that addressed the effects of QI coaching on process of care outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

We identified 1983 articles, of which 23 cluster-randomized trials met eligibility criteria. All but two took place in a primary care setting. Overall, interventions typically targeted multiple simultaneous processes of care activities. We found that coaching probably has a beneficial effect on composite process of care outcomes (n = 9) and ordering of labs and vital signs (n = 6), and possibly has a beneficial effect on changes in organizational process of care (n = 5), appropriate documentation (n = 5), and delivery of appropriate counseling (n = 3). We did not perform meta-analyses because of conceptual heterogeneity around intervention design and outcomes; rather, we synthesized the data narratively. Due to imprecision, inconsistency, and high risk of bias of the included studies, we judged the certainty of these results as low or very low.

CONCLUSION

QI coaching interventions may affect certain processes of care activities such as ordering of labs and vital signs. Future research that advances the identification of when QI coaching is most beneficial for health care teams seeking to implement improvement processes in pursuit of high-quality care will support efficient use of QI resources.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020165069).

Integration of a task strengthening strategy for hypertension management into HIV care in Nigeria: a cluster randomized controlled trial study protocol

Background

In regions with weak healthcare systems, critical shortages of the healthcare workforce, and increasing prevalence of dual disease burdens, there is an urgent need for the implementation of proven effective interventions and strategies to address these challenges. Our mixed-methods hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation study is designed to fill this evidence-to-practice gap. This study protocol describes a cluster randomized controlled trial which evaluates the effectiveness of an implementation strategy, practice facilitation (PF), on the integration, adoption, and sustainability of a task-strengthening strategy for hypertension control (TASSH) intervention within primary healthcare centers (PHCs) in Lagos State, Nigeria.

Design

Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM), this study tests the impact of a proven effective implementation strategy to integrate hypertension management into the HIV care cascade, across 30 PHCs. The study will be conducted in three phases: (1) a pre-implementation phase that will use CFIR to develop a tailored PF intervention for integrating TASSH into HIV clinics; (2) an implementation phase that will use RE-AIM to compare the clinical effectiveness of PF vs. a self-directed condition (receipt of information on TASSH without PF) on BP reduction; and (3) a post-implementation phase that will use RE-AIM to evaluate the effect of PF vs. self-directed condition on adoption and sustainability of TASSH. The PF intervention components comprise (a) an advisory board to provide leadership support for implementing TASSH in PHCs; (b) training of the HIV nurses on TASSH protocol; and (c) training of practice facilitators, who will serve as coaches, provide support, and performance feedback to the HIV nurses.

Discussion

This study is one of few, if any trials, to evaluate the impact of an implementation strategy for integrating hypertension management into HIV care, on clinical and implementation outcomes. Findings from this study will advance implementation science research on the effectiveness of tailoring an implementation strategy for the integration of an evidence-based, system-level hypertension control intervention into HIV care and treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04704336). Registered on 11 January 2021.

A practice facilitation-guided intervention in primary care settings to reduce cardiovascular disease risk: a cost analysis

Background

A stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of practice facilitation (PF) for adoption of guidelines for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease risk factors. This study estimated the associated cost of PF for guideline adoption in small, private primary care practices.

Methods

The cost analysis included categories for start-up costs, intervention costs, and practice staff costs for the implemented PF-guided intervention. We estimated the total 1-year costs to operate the program and calculated the mean and range of the cost-per-practice by quarter of the intervention. We estimated the lower and upper bounds for all salary expenses, rounding to the nearest $100.

Results

Total 1-year intervention costs for all 261 practices ranged from $7,900,000 to $10,200,000, with program and practice salaries comprising $6,600,000–$8,400,000 of the total. Start-up costs were a small proportion (3%) of the total 1-year costs. Excluding start-up costs, quarter 1 cost-per-practice was the most expensive at $20,400–$26,700, and quarter 4 was the least expensive at about $10,000. Practice staff time (compared with program staff time) was the majority of the staffing costs at 75–84%.

Conclusions

The PF strategy costs approximately $10,000 per practice per quarter for program and practice costs, once implemented and running at highest efficiency. Whether this program is “worth it” to the decision-maker depends on the relative costs and effectiveness of their other options for improving cardiovascular risk reduction.

Trial registration

This study is retrospectively registered on January 5, 2016, at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02646488.

Mixed method evaluation of Relational Team Development (RELATED) to improve team-based care for complex patients with mental illness in primary care

BACKGROUND

Patients with mental illness are frequently treated in primary care, where Primary Care Providers (PCPs) report feeling ill-equipped to manage their care. Team-based models of care improve outcomes for patients with mental illness, but multiple barriers limit adoption. Barriers include practical issues and psychosocial factors associated with the reorganization of care. Practice facilitation can improve implementation, but does not directly address the psychosocial factors or gaps in PCP skills in managing mental illness. To address these gaps, we developed Relational Team Development (RELATED).

METHODS

RELATED is an implementation strategy combining practice facilitation and psychology clinical supervision methodologies to improve implementation of team-based care. It includes PCP-level clinical coaching and a team-level practice change activity. We performed a preliminary assessment of RELATED with a convergent parallel mixed method study in 2 primary care clinics in an urban Federally Qualified Health Center in Southwest, USA, 2017-2018. Study participants included PCPs, clinic staff, and patient representatives. Clinic staff and patients were recruited for the practice change activity only. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. Feasibility was assessed as ease of recruitment and implementation. Acceptability was measured in surveys of PCPs and staff and focus groups. We conducted semi-structured focus groups with 3 participant groups in each clinic: PCPs; staff and patients; and leadership. Secondary outcomes were change in pre- post- intervention PCP self-efficacy in mental illness management and team-based care. We conducted qualitative observations to better understand clinic climate.

RESULTS

We recruited 18 PCPs, 17 staff members, and 3 patient representatives. We ended recruitment early due to over recruitment. Both clinics developed and implemented practice change activities. The mean acceptability score was 3.7 (SD=0.3) on a 4-point Likert scale. PCPs had a statistically significant increase in their mental illness management self-efficacy [change = 0.9, p-value= <.01]. Focus group comments were largely positive, with PCPs requesting additional coaching.

CONCLUSIONS

RELATED was feasible and highly acceptable. It led to positive changes in PCP self-efficacy in Mental Illness Management. If confirmed as an effective implementation strategy, RELATED has the potential to significantly impact implementation of evidence-based interventions for patients with mental illness in primary care.

Designing the relational team development intervention to improve management of mental health in primary care using iterative stakeholder engagement

Background

Team-based models of care are efficacious in improving outcomes for patients with mental and physical illnesses. However, primary care clinics have been slow to adopt these models. We used iterative stakeholder engagement to develop an intervention to improve the implementation of team-based care for this complex population.

Methods

We developed the initial framework for Relational Team Development (RELATED) from a qualitative study of Primary Care Providers’ (PCPs’) experiences treating mental illness and a literature review of practice facilitation and psychology clinical supervision. Subsequently, we surveyed 900 Colorado PCPs to identify factors associated with PCP self-efficacy in management of mental illness and team-based care. We then conducted two focus groups for feedback on RELATED. Lastly, we convened an expert panel to refine the intervention.

Results

We developed RELATED, a two-part intervention delivered by a practice facilitator with a background in clinical psychology. The facilitator observes PCPs during patient visits and provides individualized coaching. Next, the facilitator guides the primary care team through a practice change activity with a focus on relational team dynamics.

Conclusion

The iterative development of RELATED using stakeholder engagement offers a model for the development of interventions tailored to the needs of these stakeholders.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-1010-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of Practice Facilitation in Primary Care on Chronic Disease Care Processes and Outcomes: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

More than 100 million individuals in the USA have been diagnosed with a chronic disease, yet chronic disease care has remained fragmented and of inconsistent quality. Improving chronic disease management has been challenging for primary care and internal medicine practitioners. Practice facilitation provides a comprehensive approach to chronic disease care. The objective is to evaluate the impact of practice facilitation on chronic disease outcomes in the primary care setting.

METHODS

This systematic review examined North American studies from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (database inception to August 2017). Investigators independently extracted and assessed the quality of the data on chronic disease process and clinical outcome measures. Studies implemented practice facilitation and reported quantifiable care processes and patient outcomes for chronic disease. Each study and their evidence were assessed for risk of bias and quality according to the Cochrane Collaboration and the Grade Collaboration tool.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 25 studies: 12 randomized control trials and 13 prospective cohort studies. Across all studies, practices and their clinicians were aware of the implementation of practice facilitation. Improvements were observed in most studies for chronic diseases including asthma, cancer (breast, cervical, and colorectal), cardiovascular disease (cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease), and type 2 diabetes. Mixed results were observed for chronic kidney disease and chronic illness care.

DISCUSSION

Overall, the results suggest that practice facilitation may improve chronic disease care measures. Across all studies, practices were aware of practice facilitation. These findings lend support for the potential expansion of practice facilitation in primary care. Future work will need to investigate potential opportunities for practice facilitation to improve chronic disease outcomes in other health care settings (e.g., specialty and multi-specialty practices) with standardized measures.