Effects of facilitated team meetings and learning collaboratives on colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care practices: a cluster randomized trial

Strategic use of resources to enhance colorectal cancer screening for patients with diabetes (SURE: CRC4D) in federally qualified health centers: a protocol for hybrid type ii effectiveness-implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Persons with diabetes have 27% elevated risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) and are disproportionately from priority health disparities populations. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) struggle to implement CRC screening programs for average risk patients. Strategies to effectively prioritize and optimize CRC screening for patients with diabetes in the primary care safety-net are needed.

METHODS

Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment Framework, we conducted a stakeholder-engaged process to identify multi-level change objectives for implementing optimized CRC screening for patients with diabetes in FQHCs. To identify change objectives, an implementation planning group of stakeholders from FQHCs, safety-net screening programs, and policy implementers were assembled and met over a 7-month period. Depth interviews (n = 18-20) with key implementation actors were conducted to identify and refine the materials, methods and strategies needed to support an implementation plan across different FQHC contexts. The planning group endorsed the following multi-component implementation strategies: identifying clinic champions, development/distribution of patient educational materials, developing and implementing quality monitoring systems, and convening clinical meetings. To support clinic champions during the initial implementation phase, two learning collaboratives and bi-weekly virtual facilitation will be provided. In single group, hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial, we will implement and evaluate these strategies in a in six safety net clinics (n = 30 patients with diabetes per site). The primary clinical outcomes are: (1) clinic-level colonoscopy uptake and (2) overall CRC screening rates for patients with diabetes assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation. Implementation outcomes include provider and staff fidelity to the implementation plan, patient acceptability, and feasibility will be assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation.

DISCUSSION

Study findings are poised to inform development of evidence-based implementation strategies to be tested for scalability and sustainability in a future hybrid 2 effectiveness-implementation clinical trial. The research protocol can be adapted as a model to investigate the development of targeted cancer prevention strategies in additional chronically ill priority populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05785780) on March 27, 2023 (last updated October 21, 2023).

Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review

AIM

To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs.

BACKGROUND

Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type.

FINDINGS

Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.

Health system assessment for access to care after injury in low- or middle-income countries: A mixed methods study from Northern Malawi

BACKGROUND

Injuries represent a vast and relatively neglected burden of disease affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While many health systems underperform in treating injured patients, most assessments have not considered the whole system. We integrated findings from 9 methods using a 3 delays approach (delays in seeking, reaching, or receiving care) to prioritise important trauma care health system barriers in Karonga, Northern Malawi, and exemplify a holistic health system assessment approach applicable in comparable settings.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

To provide multiple perspectives on each conceptual delay and include data from community-based and facility-based sources, we used 9 methods to examine the injury care health system. The methods were (1) household survey; (2) verbal autopsy analysis; (3) community focus group discussions (FGDs); (4) community photovoice; (5) facility care-pathway process mapping and elucidation of barriers following injury; (6) facility healthcare worker survey; (7) facility assessment survey; (8) clinical vignettes for care process quality assessment of facility-based healthcare workers; and (9) geographic information system (GIS) analysis. Empirical data collection took place in Karonga, Northern Malawi, between July 2019 and February 2020. We used a convergent parallel study design concurrently conducting all data collection before subsequently integrating results for interpretation. For each delay, a matrix was created to juxtapose method-specific data relevant to each barrier identified as driving delays to injury care. Using a consensus approach, we graded the evidence from each method as to whether an identified barrier was important within the health system. We identified 26 barriers to access timely quality injury care evidenced by at least 3 of the 9 study methods. There were 10 barriers at delay 1, 6 at delay 2, and 10 at delay 3. We found that the barriers "cost," "transport," and "physical resources" had the most methods providing strong evidence they were important health system barriers within delays 1 (seeking care), 2 (reaching care), and 3 (receiving care), respectively. Facility process mapping provided evidence for the greatest number of barriers-25 of 26 within the integrated analysis. There were some barriers with notable divergent findings between the community- and facility-based methods, as well as among different community- and facility-based methods, which are discussed. The main limitation of our study is that the framework for grading evidence strength for important health system barriers across the 9 studies was done by author-derived consensus; other researchers might have created a different framework.

CONCLUSIONS

By integrating 9 different methods, including qualitative, quantitative, community-, patient-, and healthcare worker-derived data sources, we gained a rich insight into the functioning of this health system's ability to provide injury care. This approach allowed more holistic appraisal of this health system's issues by establishing convergence of evidence across the diverse methods used that the barriers of cost, transport, and physical resources were the most important health system barriers driving delays to seeking, reaching, and receiving injury care, respectively. This offers direction and confidence, over and above that derived from single methodology studies, for prioritising barriers to address through health service development and policy.

Adapting and implementing breast cancer follow-up in primary care: protocol for a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized study

BACKGROUND

Advances in detection and treatment for breast cancer have led to an increase in the number of individuals managing significant late and long-term treatment effects. Primary care has a role in caring for patients with a history of cancer, yet there is little guidance on how to effectively implement survivorship care evidence into primary care delivery.

METHODS

This protocol describes a multi-phase, mixed methods, stakeholder-driven research process that prioritizes actionable, evidence-based primary care improvements to enhance breast cancer survivorship care by integrating implementation and primary care transformation frameworks: the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Practice Change Model (PCM). Informed by depth interviews and a four round Delphi panel with diverse stakeholders from primary care and oncology, we will implement and evaluate an iterative clinical intervention in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized design in twenty-six primary care practices. Multi-component implementation strategies will include facilitation, audit and feedback, and learning collaboratives. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be performed to optimize adoption of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome to test effectiveness is comprehensive breast cancer follow-up care. Implementation will be assessed using mixed methods to explore how organizational and contextual variables affect adoption, implementation, and early sustainability for provision of follow-up care, symptom, and risk management activities at six- and 12-months post implementation.

DISCUSSION

Study findings are poised to inform development of scalable, high impact intervention processes to enhance long-term follow-up care for patients with a history of breast cancer in primary care. If successful, next steps would include working with a national primary care practice-based research network to implement a national dissemination study. Actionable activities and processes identified could also be applied to development of organizational and care delivery interventions for follow-up care for other cancer sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2, 2022: NCT05400941.

Effect of body image perception and skin-lightening practices on mental health of Filipino emerging adults: a mixed-methods approach protocol

INTRODUCTION

The rampant distribution of idealised images on the internet may lead the general public to improve their body appearance in a way that is sometimes excessive, compulsive or detrimental to other aspects of their lives. There is a decreasing appreciation of body image among emerging adults and an increasing trend on skin-lightening practices linked with psychological distress. This protocol describes the mixed-method approach to assess the relationships among body image perception, skin-lightening practices and mental well-being of Filipino emerging adults and determine the factors that influence them.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An explanatory sequential mixed-method approach will be used. A cross-sectional study design will involve an online self-administered questionnaire of 1258 participants, while a case study design will involve in-depth interviews with 25 participants. Data analysis will use generalised linear models and structural equation modelling with a Bayesian network for the quantitative data. Moreover, the qualitative data will use an inductive approach in thematic analysis. A contiguous narrative approach will integrate the quantitative and qualitative data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of the Philippines Manila Review Ethics Board has approved this protocol (UPMREB 2022-0407-01). The study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles and conference presentations.

'I'm a bit of a champion for it actually': qualitative insights into practitioner-supported self-collection cervical screening among early adopting Victorian practitioners in Australia

BACKGROUND

Self-collection for cervical screening has been available in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program since 2017 and is now available to all people as an option for cervical screening through a practitioner-supported model. Documenting early adopting practitioner experiences with self-collection as a mechanism to engage people in cervical screening is crucial to informing its continuing roll-out and implementation in other health systems.

AIM

This study aimed to describe the experiences of practitioners in Victoria, Australia, who used human papillomavirus (HPV)-based self-collection cervical screening during the first 17 months of its availability.

METHODS

Interviews (n = 18) with practitioners from Victoria, who offered self-collection to their patients between December 2017 and April 2019, analysed using template analysis.

FINDINGS

Practitioners were overwhelmingly supportive of self-collection cervical screening because it was acceptable to their patients and addressed patients' barriers to screening. Practitioners perceived that knowledge and awareness of self-collection were variable among the primary care workforce, with some viewing self-collection to be inferior to clinician-collected screening. Practitioners championed self-collection at an individual level, with the extent of practice-level implementation depending on resourcing. Concerns regarding supporting the follow-up of self-collected HPV positive patients were noted. Other practical barriers included gaining timely, accurate screening histories from the National Cancer Screening Register to assess eligibility. Practitioners' role surrounded facilitating the choice between screening tests through a patient-centred approach.

Impact of externally facilitated continuous quality improvement cohorts on Advanced Access to support primary healthcare teams: protocol for a quasi-randomized cluster trial

BACKGROUND

Improving access to primary health care is among top priorities for many countries. Advanced Access (AA) is one of the most recommended models to improve timely access to care. Over the past 15 years, the AA model has been implemented in Canada, but the implementation of AA varies substantially among providers and clinics. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) approaches can be used to promote organizational change like AA implementation. While CQI fosters the adoption of evidence-based practices, knowledge gaps remain, about the mechanisms by which QI happens and the sustainability of the results. The general aim of the study is to analyse the implementation and effects of CQI cohorts on AA for primary care clinics. Specific objectives are: 1) Analyse the process of implementing CQI cohorts to support PHC clinics in their improvement of AA. 2) Document and compare structural organisational changes and processes of care with respect to AA within study groups (intervention and control). 3) Assess the effectiveness of CQI cohorts on AA outcomes. 4) Appreciate the sustainability of the intervention for AA processes, organisational changes and outcomes.

METHODS

Cluster-controlled trial allowing for a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the proposed intervention 48 multidisciplinary primary care clinics will be recruited to participate. 24 Clinics from the intervention regions will receive the CQI intervention for 18 months including three activities carried out iteratively until the clinic's improvement objectives are achieved: 1) reflective sessions and problem priorisation; 2) plan-do-study-act cycles; and 3) group mentoring. Clinics located in the control regions will receive an audit-feedback report on access. Complementary qualitative and quantitative data reflecting the quintuple aim will be collected over a period of 36 months.

RESULTS

This research will contribute to filling the gap in the generalizability of CQI interventions and accelerate the spread of effective AA improvement strategies while strengthening local QI culture within clinics. This research will have a direct impact on patients' experiences of care.

CONCLUSION

This mixed-method approach offers a unique opportunity to contribute to the scientific literature on large-scale CQI cohorts to improve AA in primary care teams and to better understand the processes of CQI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials: NCT05715151.

Cluster-randomized trials of cancer screening interventions: Has use of appropriate statistical methods increased over time?

BACKGROUND

In a cluster randomized trial, groups of individuals (e.g., clinics, schools) are randomized to conditions. The design and analysis of cluster randomized trials can require more care than individually randomized trials. Past reviews have noted deficiencies in the use of appropriate statistical methods for such trials.

METHODS

We reviewed cluster randomized trials of cancer screening interventions published 1995-2019 to determine whether appropriate statistical methods had been used for sample size calculation and outcome analysis and whether they reported intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values. This work expanded a previous review of articles published 1995-2010.

RESULTS

Our search identified 88 articles published 1995-2020 that reported outcomes of cluster randomized trials of breast, cervix, and colorectal cancer screening interventions. There was increased reporting of the trials' sample size calculations over time, with the percentage increasing from 31% in 1995-2004 to 77% in 2014-2019. However, the percentage of calculations failing to account for cluster randomization did not change over time and was 17% of studies in 2014-2019. There was a nonsignificant trend towards increased use of outcome analysis methods that accounted for the cluster randomized design. However, in lower impact journals, use of appropriate analysis methods was only 80% in 2014-2019. Only 33% of studies reported ICC values in 2014-2019.

CONCLUSION

For cluster randomized trials with cancer screening outcomes, there have been improvements in the reporting of sample size calculations but methodological and reporting deficiencies persist. Efforts to disseminate, adopt and report the use of appropriate statistical methodologies are still needed.

The role of quality improvement collaboratives in general practice: a qualitative systematic review

Background

This systematic review used qualitative methodologies to examine the role of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) in general practice. The aim was to inform implementers and participants about the utility of using or participating in QICs in general practice.

Methods

Included studies were published in English, used a QIC intervention, reported primary research, used qualitative or mixed methods, and were conducted in general practice.

A Medline search between January 1995 and February 2020 was developed and extended to include Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo databases. Articles were sought through chaining of references and grey literature searches.

Qualitative outcome data were extracted using a framework analysis. Data were analysed using thematic synthesis. Articles were assessed for quality using a threshold approach based on the criteria described by Dixon-Woods.

Results

15 qualitative and 18 mixed-methods studies of QICs in general practice were included. Data were grouped into four analytical themes which describe the role of a collaborative in general practice: improving the target topic, developing practices and providers, developing the health system and building quality improvement capacity.

Discussion

General practice collaboratives are reported to be useful for improving target topics. They can also develop knowledge and motivation in providers, build systems and team work in local practice organisations, and improve support at a system level. Collaboratives can build quality improvement capacity in the primary care system. These roles suggest that QICs are well matched to the improvement needs of general practice.

General practice participants in collaboratives reported positive effects from effective peer interaction, high-quality local support, real engagement with data and well-designed training in quality improvement.

Strengths of this study were an inclusive search and explicit qualitative methodology. It is possible some studies were missed. Qualitative studies of collaboratives may be affected by selection bias and confirmation bias.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD4202017512.

Implementation of a Web-Based Tool for Shared Decision-making in Lung Cancer Screening: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Evaluation

Background

Lung cancer risk and life expectancy vary substantially across patients eligible for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening (LCS), which has important consequences for optimizing LCS decisions for different patients. To account for this heterogeneity during decision-making, web-based decision support tools are needed to enable quick calculations and streamline the process of obtaining individualized information that more accurately informs patient-clinician LCS discussions. We created DecisionPrecision, a clinician-facing web-based decision support tool, to help tailor the LCS discussion to a patient’s individualized lung cancer risk and estimated net benefit.

Objective

The objective of our study is to test two strategies for implementing DecisionPrecision in primary care at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers: a quality improvement (QI) training approach and academic detailing (AD).

Methods

Phase 1 comprised a multisite, cluster randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of standard implementation (adding a link to DecisionPrecision in the electronic health record vs standard implementation plus the Learn, Engage, Act, and Process [LEAP] QI training program). The primary outcome measure was the use of DecisionPrecision at each site before versus after LEAP QI training. The second phase of the study examined the potential effectiveness of AD as an implementation strategy for DecisionPrecision at all 8 medical centers. Outcomes were assessed by comparing absolute tool use before and after AD visits and conducting semistructured interviews with a subset of primary care physicians (PCPs) following the AD visits.

Results

Phase 1 findings showed that sites that participated in the LEAP QI training program used DecisionPrecision significantly more often than the standard implementation sites (tool used 190.3, SD 174.8 times on average over 6 months at LEAP sites vs 3.5 SD 3.7 at standard sites; P<.001). However, this finding was confounded by the lack of screening coordinators at standard implementation sites. In phase 2, there was no difference in the 6-month tool use between before and after AD (95% CI −5.06 to 6.40; P=.82). Follow-up interviews with PCPs indicated that the AD strategy increased provider awareness and appreciation for the benefits of the tool. However, other priorities and limited time prevented PCPs from using them during routine clinical visits.

Conclusions

The phase 1 findings did not provide conclusive evidence of the benefit of a QI training approach for implementing a decision support tool for LCS among PCPs. In addition, phase 2 findings showed that our light-touch, single-visit AD strategy did not increase tool use. To enable tool use by PCPs, prediction-based tools must be fully automated and integrated into electronic health records, thereby helping providers personalize LCS discussions among their many competing demands. PCPs also need more time to engage in shared decision-making discussions with their patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02765412; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02765412

Aiming for quality: a global compass for national learning systems

INTRODUCTION

Transforming a health system into a learning one is increasingly recognized as necessary to support the implementation of a national strategic direction on quality with a focus on frontline experience. The approach to a learning system that bridges the gap between practice and policy requires active exploration.

METHODS

This scoping review adapted the methodological framework for scoping studies from Arksey and O'Malley. The central research question focused on common themes for learning to improve the quality of health services at all levels of the national health system, from government policy to point-of-care delivery.

RESULTS

A total of 3507 records were screened, resulting in 101 articles on strategic learning across the health system: health professional level (19%), health organizational level (15%), subnational/national level (26%), multiple levels (35%), and global level (6%). Thirty-five of these articles focused on learning systems at multiple levels of the health system. A national learning system requires attention at the organizational, subnational, and national levels guided by the needs of patients, families, and the community. The compass of the national learning system is centred on four cross-cutting themes across the health system: alignment of priorities, systemwide collaboration, transparency and accountability, and knowledge sharing of real-world evidence generated at the point of care.

CONCLUSION

This paper proposes an approach for building a national learning system to improve the quality of health services. Future research is needed to validate the application of these guiding principles and make improvements based on the findings.

Implementation of Community-Based Resource Referrals for Cardiovascular Disease Self-Management

PURPOSE

Describe primary care practices' implementation of CommunityRx-H3, a community resource referral intervention that utilized practice facilitators to support cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention quality improvement.

METHODS

Qualitative focus groups were conducted with practice facilitators to elicit perceptions of practices' experiences with CommunityRx-H3, practice-level factors affecting, and practice facilitator strategies to promote implementation. Qualitative data were analyzed using directed content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was applied deductively to organize and interpret findings.

RESULTS

Fourteen of all 19 practice facilitators participated. Practice facilitators perceived that staff attitudes about connecting patients to community resources for CVD were largely positive. Practices were already using a range of non-systematic strategies to refer to community resources. Practice-level factors that facilitated CommunityRx-H3 implementation included clinician "champions," engaged practice managers, and a practice culture that valued community resources. Implementation barriers included a practice's unwillingness to integrate the intervention into existing workflows, limited staff capacity to complete the resource inventory, and unavailability or cost of materials needed to print the resource referral list ("HealtheRx-H3"). Practice facilitator strategies to promote implementation included supporting ongoing customization of the HealtheRx-H3 and material support. Practice facilitators felt implementation would be improved by integration of CommunityRx-H3 with electronic medical record workflows and alternative methods for engaging practices in the implementation process.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice facilitators are increasingly being utilized by primary care practices to support quality improvement interventions and, as shown here, can also play an important role in implementation science. This study yields insights to improve implementation of community resource referral solutions to support primary care CVD prevention efforts.

Team-Based Primary Care Practice Transformation Initiative and Changes in Patient Experience and Recommended Cancer Screening Rates

Team-based care has emerged as a promising strategy for primary care practices to provide high-quality care. We examine changes in patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates associated with a primary care transformation initiative that established team-based care. Our observational study included 13 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area that participated in 2 learning collaboratives: the first (2012-2014) aimed to establish team-based primary care, while the second (2014-2016) focused on improving patient safety and cancer screening. We identified 37 comparison practices of similar size and network affiliation. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre (2013) and post (2015) patient experience and recommended cancer screening rates between intervention and comparison practices. We estimated linear regression models, using inverse probability weighting to balance on observable differences. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners data on patient experience comes from surveys (with communication, integration, knowledge of patient, access, office staff, and willingness to recommend domains), and its data on screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers is derived from chart abstraction. Relative to comparison practices, the communication score in intervention practices increased by 1.47 percentage points on a 100-point scale (P = .02) between pre and post periods. We did not detect immediate improvements in other measures of patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates. Communication may be the first dimension of patient experience that improves following establishment of team-based primary care, and changing care processes may require more time or attention in the transition to team-based care. Our findings also suggest a need to better understand the variation in implementation factors that facilitate some practices’ successful transitions to team-based care, and to use teams effectively to improve cancer screening processes.

The role of accountable care organization affiliation and ownership in promoting physician practice participation in quality improvement collaboratives

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) have emerged as an important strategy to improve processes and outcomes of clinical care through interorganizational learning. Little is known about the organizational factors that support or deter physician practice participation in QICs.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine organizational influences on physician practices' propensity to participate in QICs. We hypothesized that practice affiliation with an accountable care organization (ACO) and practice ownership by a system or community health center (CHC) would increase the propensity of physician practices to participate in a QIC.

METHODOLOGY

Data from the third wave of the National Study of Physician Organizations, a nationally representative sample of medical practices (n = 1,359), were analyzed. Weighted multivariate regression analyses were estimated to examine the association of ACO affiliation, ownership, and QIC participation, controlling for practice size, health information technology capacity, public reporting participation, and practice revenue from Medicaid and uninsured patients. The Sobel-Goodman Test was used to explore the extent to which practice use of quality improvement (QI) methods such as Lean, Six Sigma, and use of plan-do-study-act cycles mediates the relationship between ACO affiliation and QIC participation.

FINDINGS

Only 13.6% of practices surveyed in 2012-2013 participated in a QIC. In adjusted analyses, ACO affiliation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, p < .01), CHC ownership (OR = 6.57, p < .001), larger practice size (OR = 14.72, p < .001), and health information technology functionality (OR = 1.15, p < .001) were positively associated with QIC participation. Practice use of QI methods partially mediated (13.1%-46.7%) the association of ACO affiliation with QIC participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

ACO-affiliated practices are more likely than non-ACO practices to participate in QICs. Practice size rather than system ownership appears to influence QIC participation. QI methods often promoted and used by health care systems such as CHCs and ACOs may promote QIC participation.

Leading Innovative Practice: Leadership Attributes in LEAP Practices

Policy Points An onslaught of policies from the federal government, states, the insurance industry, and professional organizations continually requires primary care practices to make substantial changes; however, ineffective leadership at the practice level can impede the dissemination and scale-up of these policies. The inability of primary care practice leadership to respond to ongoing policy demands has resulted in moral distress and clinician burnout. Investments are needed to develop interventions and educational opportunities that target a broad array of leadership attributes.

CONTEXT

Over the past several decades, health care in the United States has undergone substantial and rapid change. At the heart of this change is an assumption that a more robust primary care infrastructure helps achieve the quadruple aim of improved care, better patient experience, reduced cost, and improved work life of health care providers. Practice-level leadership is essential to succeed in this rapidly changing environment. Complex adaptive systems theory offers a lens for understanding important leadership attributes.

METHODS

A review of the literature on leadership from a complex adaptive system perspective identified nine leadership attributes hypothesized to support practice change: motivating others to engage in change, managing abuse of power and social influence, assuring psychological safety, enhancing communication and information sharing, generating a learning organization, instilling a collective mind, cultivating teamwork, fostering emergent leaders, and encouraging boundary spanning. Through a secondary qualitative analysis, we applied these attributes to nine practices ranking high on both a practice learning and leadership scale from the Learning from Effective Ambulatory Practice (LEAP) project to see if and how these attributes manifest in high-performing innovative practices.

FINDINGS

We found all nine attributes identified from the literature were evident and seemed important during a time of change and innovation. We identified two additional attributes-anticipating the future and developing formal processes-that we found to be important. Complexity science suggests a hypothesized developmental model in which some attributes are foundational and necessary for the emergence of others.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful primary care practices exhibit a diversity of strong local leadership attributes. To meet the realities of a rapidly changing health care environment, training of current and future primary care leaders needs to be more comprehensive and move beyond motivating others and developing effective teams.

The effectiveness of continuous quality improvement for developing professional practice and improving health care outcomes: a systematic review

Background

Efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of health care provision have often focused on changing approaches to the way services are organized and delivered. Continuous quality improvement (CQI), an approach used extensively in industrial and manufacturing sectors, has been used in the health sector. Despite the attention given to CQI, uncertainties remain as to its effectiveness given the complex and diverse nature of health systems. This review assesses the effectiveness of CQI across different health care settings, investigating the importance of different components of the approach.

Methods

We searched 11 electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, Academic Search Complete, HMIC, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LISTA, and NHS EED to February 2019. Also, we searched reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews, as well as checking published protocols for linked papers. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within health care settings involving teams of health professionals, evaluating the effectiveness of CQI. Comparators included current usual practice or different strategies to manage organizational change. Outcomes were health care professional performance or patient outcomes. Studies were published in English.

Results

Twenty-eight RCTs assessed the effectiveness of different approaches to CQI with a non-CQI comparator in various settings, with interventions differing in terms of the approaches used, their duration, meetings held, people involved, and training provided. All RCTs were considered at risk of bias, undermining their results. Findings suggested that the benefits of CQI compared to a non-CQI comparator on clinical process, patient, and other outcomes were limited, with less than half of RCTs showing any effect. Where benefits were evident, it was usually on clinical process measures, with the model used (i.e., Plan-Do-Study-Act, Model of Improvement), the meeting type (i.e., involving leaders discussing implementation) and their frequency (i.e., weekly) having an effect. None considered socio-economic health inequalities.

Conclusions

Current evidence suggests the benefits of CQI in improving health care are uncertain, reflecting both the poor quality of evaluations and the complexities of health services themselves. Further mixed-methods evaluations are needed to understand how the health service can use this proven approach.

Trial registration

Protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018088309).

Understanding quality improvement collaboratives through an implementation science lens

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) have long been used to facilitate group learning and implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in healthcare. However, few studies systematically describe implementation strategies linked to QIC success. To address this gap, we evaluated a QIC on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) by aligning standardized implementation strategies with collaborative activities and measuring implementation and effectiveness outcomes. In 2018, the American Cancer Society and North Carolina Community Health Center Association provided funding, in-person/virtual training, facilitation, and audit and feedback with the goal of building FQHC capacity to enact selected implementation strategies. The QIC evaluation plan included a pre-test/post-test single group design and mixed methods data collection. We assessed: 1) adoption, 2) engagement, 3) implementation of QI tools and CRC screening EBIs, and 4) changes in CRC screening rates. A post-collaborative focus group captured participants' perceptions of implementation strategies. Twenty-three percent of North Carolina FQHCs (9/40) participated in the collaborative. Health Center engagement was high although individual participation decreased over time. Teams completed all four QIC tools: aim statements, process maps, gap and root cause analysis, and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. FQHCs increased their uptake of evidence-based CRC screening interventions and rates increased 8.0% between 2017 and 2018. Focus group findings provided insights into participants' opinions regarding the feasibility and appropriateness of the implementation strategies and how they influenced outcomes. Results support the collaborative's positive impact on FQHC capacity to implement QI tools and EBIs to improve CRC screening rates.

Mixed methods grant applications in the health sciences: An analysis of reviewer comments

Our aim was to understand how reviewers appraise mixed methods research by analyzing reviewer comments for grant applications submitted primarily to the National Institutes of Health. We requested scholars and consultants in the Mixed Methods Research Training Program (MMRTP) for the Health Sciences to send us summary statements from their mixed methods grant applications and obtained 40 summary statements of funded (40%) and unfunded (60%) mixed methods grant applications. We conducted a document analysis using a coding rubric based on the NIH Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences and allowed inductive codes to emerge. Reviewers favorably appraised mixed methods applications demonstrating coherence among aims and research design elements, detailed methods, plans for mixed methods integration, and the use of theoretical models. Reviewers identified weaknesses in mixed methods applications that lacked methodological details or rationales, had a high participant burden, and failed to delineate investigator roles. Successful mixed methods applications convey assumptions behind the methods chosen to accomplish specific aims and clearly detail the procedures to be taken. Investigators planning to use mixed methods should remember that reviewers are looking for both points of view.

The 3 Cs of Content, Context, and Concepts: A Practical Approach to Recording Unstructured Field Observations

Most primary care researchers lack a practical approach for including field observations in their studies, even though observations can offer important qualitative insights and provide a mechanism for documenting behaviors, events, and unexpected occurrences. We present an overview of unstructured field observations as a qualitative research method for analyzing material surroundings and social interactions. We then detail a practical approach to collecting and recording observational data through a "3 Cs" template of content, context, and concepts. To demonstrate how this method works in practice, we provide an example of a completed template and discuss the analytical approach used during a study on informed consent for research participation in the primary care setting of Qatar.

Family Medicine Program in Iran: SWOT Analysis and TOWS Matrix Model

BACKGROUND

We aimed to determine strength, weakness, opportunities and threats analysis and intended to present strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats matrix model for appropriate implementation of Family medicine program in Iran.

METHODS

This was a descriptive-analytical and cross-sectional study. All attending physicians in 30 health care centers of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran were asked to present and prioritized their views about strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats factors of family medicine program in Iran in 2015. Then, the prioritization of these factors was showed by weighted score of each factor. Finally, the respondents determined four groups of TOWS model including SO, ST, WO, and WT strategy for development of family medicine in Iran.

RESULTS

Totally, the respondents expressed 44 factors as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of family medicine program and prioritized these factors and suggested 30 TOWS matrix strategy for efficient implementation of this program.

CONCLUSION

There were many internal and external factors that impress the implementation of family medicine program. There is a gap between the ideal and the current situation of this program. We suggest the health care system policy makers notice the TOWS matrix strategies determined for improvement of family medicine program in Iran.

Primary Care Practices' Abilities And Challenges In Using Electronic Health Record Data For Quality Improvement

Federal value-based payment programs require primary care practices to conduct quality improvement activities, informed by the electronic reports on clinical quality measures that their electronic health records (EHRs) generate. To determine whether EHRs produce reports adequate to the task, we examined survey responses from 1,492 practices across twelve states, supplemented with qualitative data. Meaningful-use participation, which requires the use of a federally certified EHR, was associated with the ability to generate reports-but the reports did not necessarily support quality improvement initiatives. Practices reported numerous challenges in generating adequate reports, such as difficulty manipulating and aligning measurement time frames with quality improvement needs, lack of functionality for generating reports on electronic clinical quality measures at different levels, discordance between clinical guidelines and measures available in reports, questionable data quality, and vendors that were unreceptive to changing EHR configuration beyond federal requirements. The current state of EHR measurement functionality may be insufficient to support federal initiatives that tie payment to clinical quality measures.

Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer screening (CRC) is recommended by all major US medical organizations but remains underused.

OBJECTIVE

To identify interventions associated with increasing CRC screening rates and their effect sizes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1, 1996, to August 31, 2017. Key search terms included colorectal cancer and screening.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of US-based interventions in clinical settings designed to improve CRC screening test completion in average-risk adults.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

At least 2 investigators independently extracted data and appraised each study's risk of bias. Where sufficient data were available, random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain either a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) for screening completion for each type of intervention.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was completion of CRC screening. Examination included interventions to increase completion of (1) initial CRC screening by any recommended modality, (2) colonoscopy after an abnormal initial screening test result, and (3) continued rounds of annual fecal blood tests (FBTs).

RESULTS

The main review included 73 randomized clinical trials comprising 366 766 patients at low or medium risk of bias. Interventions that were associated with increased CRC screening completion rates compared with usual care included FBT outreach (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.81-2.81; RD, 22%; 95% CI, 17%-27%), patient navigation (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.46; RD, 18%; 95% CI, 13%-23%), patient education (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; RD, 4%; 95% CI, 1%-6%), patient reminders (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; RD, 3%; 95% CI, 0%-5%), clinician interventions of academic detailing (RD, 10%; 95% CI, 3%-17%), and clinician reminders (RD, 13%; 95% CI, 8%-19%). Combinations of interventions (clinician interventions or navigation added to FBT outreach) were associated with greater increases than single components (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; RD, 7%; 95% CI, 3%-11%). Repeated mailed FBTs with navigation were associated with increased annual FBT completion (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.91-2.29; RD, 39%; 95% CI, 29%-49%). Patient navigation was not associated with colonoscopy completion after an initial abnormal screening test result (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.60; RD, 14%; 95% CI, 0%-29%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Fecal blood test outreach and patient navigation, particularly in the context of multicomponent interventions, were associated with increased CRC screening rates in US trials. Fecal blood test outreach should be incorporated into population-based screening programs. More research is needed on interventions to increase adherence to continued FBTs, follow-up of abnormal initial screening test results, and cost-effectiveness and other implementation barriers for more intensive interventions, such as navigation.

Longitudinal multiple case study on effectiveness of network-based dementia care towards more integration, quality of care, and collaboration in primary care

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to provide insight into the merits of DementiaNet, a network-based primary care innovation for community-dwelling dementia patients.

METHODS

Longitudinal mixed methods multiple case study including 13 networks of primary care professionals as cases. Data collection comprised continuously-kept logs; yearly network maturity score (range 0-24), yearly quality of care assessment (quality indicators, 0-100), and in-depth interviews.

RESULTS

Networks consisted of median nine professionals (range 5-22) covering medical, care and welfare disciplines. Their follow-up was 1-2 years. Average yearly increase was 2.03 (95%-CI:1.20-2.96) on network maturity and 8.45 (95%-CI:2.80-14.69) on quality indicator score. High primary care practice involvement and strong leadership proved essential in the transition towards more mature networks with better quality of care.

DISCUSSION

Progress towards more mature networks favored quality of care improvements. DementiaNet appeared to be effective to realize transition towards network-based care, enhance multidisciplinary collaboration, and improve quality of dementia care.

Engaging Primary Care Practices in Studies of Improvement: Did You Budget Enough for Practice Recruitment?

PURPOSE

The methods and costs to enroll small primary care practices in large, regional quality improvement initiatives are unknown. We describe the recruitment approach, cost, and resources required to recruit and enroll 500 practices in the Northwest and Midwest regional cooperatives participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-funded initiative, EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care.

METHODS

The project management team of each cooperative tracked data on recruitment methods used for identifying and connecting with practices. We developed a cost-of-recruitment template and used it to record personnel time and associated costs of travel and communication materials.

RESULTS

A total of 3,669 practices were contacted during the 14- to 18-month recruitment period, resulting in 484 enrolled practices across the 6 states served by the 2 cooperatives. The average number of interactions per enrolled practice was 7, with a total of 29,100 hours and a total cost of $2.675 million, or $5,529 per enrolled practice. Prior partnerships predicted recruiting almost 1 in 3 of these practices as contrasted to 1 in 20 practices without a previous relationship or warm hand-off.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment of practices for large-scale practice quality improvement transformation initiatives is difficult and costly. The cost of recruiting practices without existing partnerships is expensive, costing 7 times more than reaching out to familiar practices. Investigators initiating and studying practice quality improvement initiatives should budget adequate funds to support high-touch recruitment strategies, including building trusted relationships over a long time frame, for a year or more.

A Quasi-experimental Evaluation of Performance Improvement Teams in the Safety-Net: A Labor-Management Partnership Model for Engaging Frontline Staff

BACKGROUND

Unit-based teams (UBTs), initially developed by Kaiser Permanente and affiliated unions, are natural work groups of clinicians, managers, and frontline staff who work collaboratively to identify areas for improvement and implement solutions.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the UBT model implemented by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services in partnership with its union to engage frontline staff in improving patient care.

DESIGN

We conducted a quasi-experimental study, comparing surveys at baseline and 6 months, among personnel in 10 clinics who received UBT training to personnel in 5 control clinics. We also interviewed staff from 5 clinics that received UBT training and 3 control clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

We conducted 330 surveys and 38 individual, semi-structured interviews with staff at an outpatient facility in South Los Angeles.

INTERVENTIONS

Each UBT leader received an 8-hour training in basic performance improvement methods, and each UBT was assigned a team "coach."

MAIN MEASURES

Our outcome measure was 6-month change in the "adaptive reserve" score, the units' self-reported ability to make and sustain change. We analyzed transcripts of the interviews to find common themes regarding the UBT intervention.

KEY RESULTS

The survey response rate was 63% (158/252) at baseline and 75% (172/231) at 6 months. There was a significant difference-in-change in adaptive reserve between UBTs and non-UBTs at 6 months (+0.11 vs -0.13; P = .02). Nine of the 10 UBTs reported increases in adaptive reserve and 8 UBTs reported decreased no-show rates or patient length of stay in clinic. Staff overwhelmingly felt the UBTs were a positive intervention because it allowed all levels of staff to have a voice in improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that partnership between management and unions to engage frontline staff in teams may be a useful tool to improve delivery of health care in a safety-net setting.

Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review

Background

Quality improvement collaboratives (QIC) have proliferated internationally, but there is little empirical evidence for their effectiveness.

Method

We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library databases from January 1995 to December 2014. Studies were included if they met the criteria for a QIC intervention and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) minimum study design characteristics for inclusion in a review. We assessed study bias using the EPOC checklist and the quality of the reported intervention using a subset of SQUIRE 1.0 standards.

Results

Of the 220 studies meeting QIC criteria, 64 met EPOC study design standards for inclusion. There were 10 cluster randomised controlled trials, 24 controlled before-after studies and 30 interrupted time series studies. QICs encompassed a broad range of clinical settings, topics and populations ranging from neonates to the elderly. Few reports fully described QIC implementation and methods, intensity of activities, degree of site engagement and important contextual factors. By care setting, an improvement was reported for one or more of the study’s primary effect measures in 83% of the studies (32/39 (82%) hospital based, 17/20 (85%) ambulatory care, 3/4 nursing home and a sole ambulance QIC). Eight studies described persistence of the intervention effect 6 months to 2 years after the end of the collaborative. Collaboratives reporting success generally addressed relatively straightforward aspects of care, had a strong evidence base and noted a clear evidence-practice gap in an accepted clinical pathway or guideline.

Conclusions

QICs have been adopted widely as an approach to shared learning and improvement in healthcare. Overall, the QICs included in this review reported significant improvements in targeted clinical processes and patient outcomes. These reports are encouraging, but most be interpreted cautiously since fewer than a third met established quality and reporting criteria, and publication bias is likely.

Role enactment of facilitation in primary care - a qualitative study

Background

Facilitation is a widely used implementation method in quality improvement. Reviews reveal a variety of understandings of facilitation and facilitator roles. Research suggests that facilitation interventions should be flexible and tailored to the needs and circumstances of the receiving organisations. The complexity of the facilitation field and diversity of potential facilitator roles fosters a need to investigate in detail how facilitation is enacted. Hence, the purpose of this study was to explore the enactment of external peer facilitation in general practice in order to create a stronger basis for discussing and refining facilitation as an implementation method.

Methods

The facilitation intervention under study was conducted in general practice in the Capital Region of Denmark in order to support an overall strategy for implementing chronic disease management programmes. We observed 30 facilitation visits in 13 practice settings and had interviews and focus groups with facilitators. We applied an explorative approach in data collection and analysis, and conducted an inductive thematic analysis.

Results

The facilitators mainly enacted four facilitator roles: teacher, super user, peer and process manager. Thus, apart from trying to keep the process structured and focused the facilitators were engaged in didactic presentations and hands-on learning as they tried to pass on factual information and experienced based knowledge as well as their own enthusiasm towards implementing practice changes. While occasional challenges were observed with enacting these roles, more importantly we found that a coaching based role which was also envisioned in the intervention design was only sparsely enacted meaning that the facilitators did not enable substantial internal group discussions during their facilitation visits.

Conclusion

Facilitation is a complex phenomenon both conceptually and in practice. This study complements existing research by showing how facilitation can be enacted in various ways and by suggesting that some facilitator roles are more likely to be enacted than others, depending on the context and intervention design and the professional background of the facilitators. This complexity requires caution when comparing and evaluating facilitation studies and highlights a need for precision and clarity about goals, roles, and competences when designing, conducting, and reporting facilitation interventions.

Using Practice Facilitation to Increase Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers, North Carolina, 2012-2013: Feasibility, Facilitators, and Barriers

Introduction

Practice facilitation involves trained individuals working with practice staff to conduct quality improvement activities and support delivery of evidence-based clinical services. We examined the feasibility of using practice facilitation to assist federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in North Carolina.

Methods

The intervention consisted of 12 months of facilitation in 3 FQHCs. We conducted chart audits to obtain data on changes in documented recommendation for colorectal cancer screening and completed screening. Key informant interviews provided qualitative data on barriers to and facilitators of implementing office systems.

Results

Overall, the percentage of eligible patients with a documented colorectal cancer screening recommendation increased from 15% to 29% (P < .001). The percentage of patients up to date with colorectal cancer screening rose from 23% to 34% (P = .03). Key informants in all 3 clinics said the implementation support from the practice facilitator was critical for initiating or improving office systems and that modifying the electronic medical record was the biggest challenge and most time-consuming aspect of implementing office systems changes. Other barriers were staff turnover and reluctance on the part of local gastroenterology practices to perform free or low-cost diagnostic colonoscopies for uninsured or underinsured patients.

Conclusion

Practice facilitation is a feasible, acceptable, and promising approach for supporting universal colorectal cancer screening in FQHCs. A larger-scale study is warranted.

Exploring how nurses assess, monitor and manage acute pain for adult critically ill patients in the emergency department: protocol for a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Many critically ill patients experience moderate to severe acute pain that is frequently undetected and/or undertreated. Acute pain in this patient cohort not only derives from their injury and/or illness, but also as a consequence of delivering care whilst stabilising the patient. Emergency nurses are increasingly responsible for the safety and wellbeing of critically ill patients, which includes assessing, monitoring and managing acute pain. How emergency nurses manage acute pain in critically ill adult patients is unknown. The objective of this study is to explore how emergency nurses manage acute pain in critically ill patients in the Emergency Department.

METHODS

In this paper, we provide a detailed description of the methods and protocol for a multiphase sequential mixed methods study, exploring how emergency nurses assess, monitor and manage acute pain in critically ill adult patients. The objective, method, data collection and analysis of each phase are explained. Justification of each method and data integration is described.

DISCUSSION

Synthesis of findings will generate a comprehensive picture of how emergency nurses' perceive and manage acute pain in critically ill adult patients. The results of this study will form a knowledge base to expand theory and inform research and practice.

Impact of the 5As Team study on clinical practice in primary care obesity management: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The 5As [Ask, Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist] of Obesity Management Team study was a randomized controlled trial of an intervention that was implemented and evaluated to help primary care providers improve clinical practice for obesity management. This paper presents health care provider perspectives of the impacts of the intervention on individual provider and team practices.

METHODS

This study reports a thematic network analysis of qualitative data collected during the 5As Team study, which involved 24 chronic disease teams affiliated with family practices in a Primary Care Network in Alberta. Qualitative data from 28 primary care providers (registered nurses/nurse practitioners [n = 14], dietitians [n = 7] and mental health workers [n = 7]) in the intervention arm were collected through semistructured interviews, field notes, practice facilitator diaries and 2 evaluation workshop questionnaires.

RESULTS

Providers internalized 5As Team intervention concepts, deepening self-evaluation and changing clinical reasoning around obesity. Providers perceived that this internalization changed the provider-patient relationship positively. The intervention changed relations between providers, increasing interdisciplinary understanding, collaboration and discovery of areas for improvement. This personal and interpersonal evolution effected change to the entire Primary Care Network.

INTERPRETATION

The 5As Team intervention had multiple impacts on providers and teams to improve obesity management in primary care. Improved provider confidence and capability is a precondition of developing effective patient interventions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no.: NCT01967797.

Impact of a provincial quality-improvement program on primary health care in Ontario: a population-based controlled before-and-after study

BACKGROUND

In Ontario, a province-wide quality-improvement program (Quality Improvement and Innovation Partnership [QIIP]) was implemented between 2008 and 2010 to support improved outcomes in Family Health Teams, a care model that includes many features of the patient-centred medical home. We assessed the impact of this program on diabetes management, colorectal and cervical cancer screening and access to health care.

METHODS

We used comprehensive linked administrative data sets to conduct a population-based controlled before-and-after study. Outcome measures included diabetes process-of-care measures (test ordering, retinal examination, medication prescribing and completion of billing items specific to diabetes management), colorectal and cervical cancer screening measures and use of health care services (emergency department visits, hospital admission for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions and rates of readmission to hospital). The control group consisted of Family Health Team physicians with at least 100 assigned patients during the study follow-up period (November 2009-February 2013).

RESULTS

There were 53 physicians in the intervention group and 1178 physicians in the control group. Diabetes process-of-care measures improved more in the intervention group than in the control group: hemoglobin A1c testing 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-7.5) more, retinal examination 2.5% (95% CI 0.8-4.4) more and preventive care visits 8.9% (95% CI 2.9-14.9) more. Medication prescribing also improved for use of statins (3.4% [95% CI 0.8-6.0] more) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (4.1% [95% CI 1.8-6.4] more). Colorectal cancer screening improved 5.4% (95% CI 3.1-7.8) more in the intervention group than in the control group, and cervical cancer screening improved 2.7% (95% CI 0.9-4.6) more. There were no significant differences in any of the measures of use of health care services.

INTERPRETATION

This large controlled evaluation of a broadly implemented quality-improvement initiative showed improvement for diabetes process of care and cancer screening outcomes, but not for proxy measures of access related to use of health care services.

Cannabis and Young Users-A Brief Intervention to Reduce Their Consumption (CANABIC): A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care

PURPOSE

Brief intervention to reduce cannabis is a promising technique that could be adapted for use in primary care, but it has not been well studied in this setting. We tested the efficacy of a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners among cannabis users aged 15 to 25 years.

METHODS

We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with 77 general practitioners in France. The intervention consisted of an interview designed according to the FRAMES (feedback, responsibility, advice, menu, empathy, self-efficacy) model, while the control condition consisted of routine care.

RESULTS

The general practitioners screened and followed up 261 young cannabis users. After 1 year, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the median number of joints smoked per month among all users (17.5 vs 17.5; P = .13), but there was a difference in favor of the intervention among nondaily users (3 vs 10; P = .01). After 6 months, the intervention was associated with a more favorable change from baseline in the number of joints smoked (-33.3% vs 0%, P = .01) and, among users younger than age of 18, smoking of fewer joints per month (12.5 vs 20, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a brief intervention conducted by general practitioners with French young cannabis users does not affect use overall. They do, however, strongly support use of brief intervention for younger users and for moderate users.

Barriers and facilitators of Canadian quality and safety teams: a mixed-methods study exploring the views of health care leaders

BACKGROUND

Health care organizations are utilizing quality and safety (QS) teams as a mechanism to optimize care. However, there is a lack of evidence-informed best practices for creating and sustaining successful QS teams. This study aimed to understand what health care leaders viewed as barriers and facilitators to establishing/implementing and measuring the impact of Canadian acute care QS teams.

METHODS

Organizational senior leaders (SLs) and QS team leaders (TLs) participated. A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design included surveys (n=249) and interviews (n=89). Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables for region, organization size, and leader position. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for constant comparison analysis.

RESULTS

Five qualitative themes overlapped with quantitative data: (1) resources, time, and capacity; (2) data availability and information technology; (3) leadership; (4) organizational plan and culture; and (5) team composition and processes. Leaders from larger organizations more often reported that clear objectives and physician champions facilitated QS teams (p<0.01). Fewer Eastern respondents viewed board/senior leadership as a facilitator (p<0.001), and fewer Ontario respondents viewed geography as a barrier to measurement (p<0.001). TLs and SLs differed on several factors, including time to meet with the team, data availability, leadership, and culture.

CONCLUSION

QS teams need strong, committed leaders who align initiatives to strategic directions of the organization, foster a quality culture, and provide tools teams require for their work. There are excellent opportunities to create synergy across the country to address each organization's quality agenda.

External facilitators and interprofessional facilitation teams: a qualitative study of their roles in supporting practice change

Background

Facilitation is a powerful approach to support practice change. The purpose of this study is to better understand the facilitation roles exercised by both external facilitators and interprofessional facilitation teams to foster the implementation of change. Building on Dogherty et al.’s taxonomy of facilitation activities, this study uses an organizational development lens to identify and analyze facilitation roles. It includes a concise definition of what interprofessional facilitation teams actually do, thus expanding our limited knowledge of teams that act as change agents. We also investigate the facilitation dynamics between change actors.

Methods

We carried out a qualitative analysis of a 1-year process of practice change implementation. We studied four family medicine groups, in which we constituted interprofessional facilitation teams. Each team was supported by one external facilitator and included at least one family physician, one case manager nurse, and health professionals located on or off the family medicine group’s site (one pharmacist, plus at least one nutritionist, kinesiologist, or psychologist). We collected our data through focus group interviews with the four teams, individual interviews with the two external facilitators, and case audit documentation. We analyzed both predetermined (as per Dogherty et al., 2012) and emerging facilitation roles, as well as facilitation dynamics.

Results

A non-linear framework of facilitation roles emerged from our data, based on four fields of expertise: change management, project management, meeting management, and group/interpersonal dynamics. We identified 72 facilitation roles, grouped into two categories: “implementation-oriented” and “support-oriented.” Each category was subdivided into themes (n = 6; n = 5) for clearer understanding (e.g., legitimation of change/project, management of effective meetings). Finally, an examination of facilitation dynamics revealed eight relational ties occurring within and/or between groups of actors.

Conclusions

Facilitation is an approach used by appointed individuals, which teams can also foster, to build capacity and support practice change. Increased understanding of facilitation roles constitutes an asset in training practitioners such as organizational development experts, consultants, facilitators, and facilitation teams. It also helps decision makers become aware of the multiple roles and dynamics involved and the key competencies needed to recruit facilitators and members of interprofessional facilitation teams.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0458-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Results in Health Science Mixed Methods Research Through Joint Displays

PURPOSE

Mixed methods research is becoming an important methodology to investigate complex health-related topics, yet the meaningful integration of qualitative and quantitative data remains elusive and needs further development. A promising innovation to facilitate integration is the use of visual joint displays that bring data together visually to draw out new insights. The purpose of this study was to identify exemplar joint displays by analyzing the various types of joint displays being used in published articles.

METHODS

We searched for empirical articles that included joint displays in 3 journals that publish state-of-the-art mixed methods research. We analyzed each of 19 identified joint displays to extract the type of display, mixed methods design, purpose, rationale, qualitative and quantitative data sources, integration approaches, and analytic strategies. Our analysis focused on what each display communicated and its representation of mixed methods analysis.

RESULTS

The most prevalent types of joint displays were statistics-by-themes and side-by-side comparisons. Innovative joint displays connected findings to theoretical frameworks or recommendations. Researchers used joint displays for convergent, explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential, and intervention designs. We identified exemplars for each of these designs by analyzing the inferences gained through using the joint display. Exemplars represented mixed methods integration, presented integrated results, and yielded new insights.

CONCLUSIONS

Joint displays appear to provide a structure to discuss the integrated analysis and assist both researchers and readers in understanding how mixed methods provides new insights. We encourage researchers to use joint displays to integrate and represent mixed methods analysis and discuss their value.

The common characteristics and outcomes of multidisciplinary collaboration in primary health care: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Research on collaboration in primary care focuses on specific diseases or types of collaboration. We investigate the effects of such collaboration by bringing together the results of scientific studies.

THEORY AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane and EMBASE. The review was restricted to publications that test outcomes of multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care in high-income countries. A conceptual model is used to structure the analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies comply with the selection criteria about collaboration in primary care. Approximately half of the 139 outcomes in these studies is non-significant. Studies among older patients, in particular, report non-significant outcomes (p < .05). By contrast, a higher proportion of significant results were found in studies that report on clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

This review shows a large diversity in the types of collaboration in primary care; and also thus a large proportion of outcomes do not seem to be positively affected by collaboration. Both the characteristics of the structure of the collaboration and the collaboration processes themselves affect the outcomes. More research is necessary to understand the mechanism behind the success of collaboration, especially on the exact nature of collaboration and the context in which collaboration takes place.

Implementing a user-driven online quality improvement toolkit for cancer care

PURPOSE

Peer-to-peer collaboration within integrated health systems requires a mechanism for sharing quality improvement lessons. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) developed online compendia of tools linked to specific cancer quality indicators. We evaluated awareness and use of the toolkits, variation across facilities, impact of social marketing, and factors influencing toolkit use.

METHODS

A diffusion of innovations conceptual framework guided the collection of user activity data from the Toolkit Series SharePoint site and an online survey of potential Lung Cancer Care Toolkit users.

RESULTS

The VA Toolkit Series site had 5,088 unique visitors in its first 22 months; 5% of users accounted for 40% of page views. Social marketing communications were correlated with site usage. Of survey respondents (n = 355), 54% had visited the site, of whom 24% downloaded at least one tool. Respondents' awareness of the lung cancer quality performance of their facility, and facility participation in quality improvement collaboratives, were positively associated with Toolkit Series site use. Facility-level lung cancer tool implementation varied widely across tool types.

CONCLUSION

The VA Toolkit Series achieved widespread use and a high degree of user engagement, although use varied widely across facilities. The most active users were aware of and active in cancer care quality improvement. Toolkit use seemed to be reinforced by other quality improvement activities. A combination of user-driven tool creation and centralized toolkit development seemed to be effective for leveraging health information technology to spread disease-specific quality improvement tools within an integrated health care system.

Manifestations and implications of uncertainty for improving healthcare systems: an analysis of observational and interventional studies grounded in complexity science

Background

The application of complexity science to understanding healthcare system improvement highlights the need to consider interdependencies within the system. One important aspect of the interdependencies in healthcare delivery systems is how individuals relate to each other. However, results from our observational and interventional studies focusing on relationships to understand and improve outcomes in a variety of healthcare settings have been inconsistent. We sought to better understand and explain these inconsistencies by analyzing our findings across studies and building new theory.

Methods

We analyzed eight observational and interventional studies in which our author team was involved as the basis of our analysis, using a set theoretical qualitative comparative analytic approach. Over 16 investigative meetings spanning 11 months, we iteratively analyzed our studies, identifying patterns of characteristics that could explain our set of results.

Our initial focus on differences in setting did not explain our mixed results. We then turned to differences in patient care activities and tasks being studied and the attributes of the disease being treated. Finally, we examined the interdependence between task and disease.

Results

We identified system-level uncertainty as a defining characteristic of complex systems through which we interpreted our results. We identified several characteristics of healthcare tasks and diseases that impact the ways uncertainty is manifest across diverse care delivery activities. These include disease-related uncertainty (pace of evolution of disease and patient control over outcomes) and task-related uncertainty (standardized versus customized, routine versus non-routine, and interdependencies required for task completion).

Conclusions

Uncertainty is an important aspect of clinical systems that must be considered in designing approaches to improve healthcare system function. The uncertainty inherent in tasks and diseases, and how they come together in specific clinical settings, will influence the type of improvement strategies that are most likely to be successful. Process-based efforts appear best-suited for low-uncertainty contexts, while relationship-based approaches may be most effective for high-uncertainty situations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0165-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices

Mixed methods research offers powerful tools for investigating complex processes and systems in health and health care. This article describes integration principles and practices at three levels in mixed methods research and provides illustrative examples. Integration at the study design level occurs through three basic mixed method designs-exploratory sequential, explanatory sequential, and convergent-and through four advanced frameworks-multistage, intervention, case study, and participatory. Integration at the methods level occurs through four approaches. In connecting, one database links to the other through sampling. With building, one database informs the data collection approach of the other. When merging, the two databases are brought together for analysis. With embedding, data collection and analysis link at multiple points. Integration at the interpretation and reporting level occurs through narrative, data transformation, and joint display. The fit of integration describes the extent the qualitative and quantitative findings cohere. Understanding these principles and practices of integration can help health services researchers leverage the strengths of mixed methods.

Health care organizations as complex systems: new perspectives on design and management

PURPOSE

We discuss the impact of complexity science on the design and management of health care organizations over the past decade. We provide an overview of complexity science issues and their impact on thinking about health care systems, particularly with the rising importance of information systems. We also present a complexity science perspective on current issues in today's health care organizations and suggest ways that this perspective might help in approaching these issues.

APPROACH

We review selected research, focusing on work in which we participated, to identify specific examples of applications of complexity science. We then take a look at information systems in health care organizations from a complexity viewpoint.

FINDINGS

Complexity science is a fundamentally different way of understanding nature and has influenced the thinking of scholars and practitioners as they have attempted to understand health care organizations. Many scholars study health care organizations as complex adaptive systems and through this perspective develop new management strategies. Most important, perhaps, is the understanding that attention to relationships and interdependencies is critical for developing effective management strategies.

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Increased understanding of complexity science can enhance the ability of researchers and practitioners to develop new ways of understanding and improving health care organizations.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This analysis opens new vistas for scholars and practitioners attempting to understand health care organizations as complex adaptive systems. The analysis holds value for those already familiar with this approach as well as those who may not be as familiar.