Improving team coordination in primary-care settings via multifaceted team-based feedback: a non-randomised controlled trial study

What can we learn from COVID-19?: examining the resilience of primary care teams

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to place an unprecedented strain on the US healthcare system, and primary care is no exception. Primary care services have shifted toward a team-based approach for delivering care in the last decade. COVID-19 placed extraordinary stress on primary care teams at the forefront of the pandemic response efforts. The current work applies the science of effective teams to examine the impact of COVID-19-a crisis or adverse event-on primary care team resilience.

Methods

Little empirical research has been done testing the theory of team resilience during an extremely adverse crisis event in an applied team setting. Therefore, we conducted an archival study by using large-scale national data from the Veterans Health Administration to understand the characteristics and performance of 7,023 Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs) during COVID-19.

Results

Our study found that primary care teams maintained performance in the presence of adversity, indicating possible team resilience. Further, team coordination positively predicted team performance (B = 0.53) regardless of the level of adversity a team was experiencing.

Discussion

These findings in turn attest to the need to preserve team coordination in the presence of adversity. Results carry implications for creating opportunities for teams to learn and adjust to an adverse event to maintain performance and optimize team-member well-being. Teamwork can act as a protective factor against high levels of workload, burnout, and turnover, and should be studied further for its role in promoting team resilience.

Increasing physician participation as subjects in scientific and quality improvement research

Background

The twenty-first century has witnessed an exponential increase in healthcare quality research. As such activities become more prevalent, physicians are increasingly needed to participate as subjects in research and quality improvement (QI) projects. This raises an important ethical question: how should physicians be remunerated for participating as research and/or QI subjects?

Financial versus non-monetary incentives for participation

Research suggests participation in research and QI is often driven by conditional altruism, the idea that although initial interest in enrolling in research is altruistic or prosocial, decisions to actually perform study tasks are cost–benefit driven. Thus, the three models commonly employed to appropriately compensate participants (in-kind compensation such as travel reimbursement, paying market rates for the subject’s time, and paying market rates for the activity asked of the participant) are a poor fit when the participant is a clinician, largely due to the asymmetry between cost and benefit or value to the participant. Non-monetary alternatives such as protected time for participation, continuing education or maintenance of certification credit, or professional development materials, can provide viable avenues for reducing this asymmetry.

Conclusion

Research and QI are integral to the betterment of medicine and healthcare. To increase physician participation in these activities as the subject of study, new models are needed that clarify the physician’s role in research and QI as a subject. Non-monetary approaches are recommended to successfully and ethically encourage research and QI participation, and thus incorporate these activities as a normal part of the ethical clinician’s and successful learning healthcare system’s world view.

An evidence-based, structured, expert approach to selecting essential indicators of primary care quality

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this article is to illustrate the application of an evidence-based, structured performance measurement methodology to identify, prioritize, and (when appropriate) generate new measures of health care quality, using primary care as a case example. Primary health care is central to the health care system and health of the American public; thus, ensuring high quality is essential. Due to its complexity, ensuring high-quality primary care requires measurement frameworks that can assess the quality of the infrastructure, workforce configurations, and processes available. This paper describes the use of the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) to compile a targeted set of such measures, prioritized according to their contribution and value to primary care.

METHODS

We adapted ProMES to select and rank existing primary care measures according to value to the primary care clinic. Nine subject matter experts (SMEs) consisting of clinicians, hospital leaders and national policymakers participated in facilitated expert elicitation sessions to identify objectives of performance, corresponding measures, and priority rankings.

RESULTS

The SMEs identified three fundamental objectives: access, patient-health care team partnerships, and technical quality. The SMEs also selected sixteen performance indicators from the 44 pre-vetted, currently existing measures from three different data sources for primary care. One indicator, Team 2-Day Post Discharge Contact Ratio, was selected as an indicator of both team partnerships and technical quality. Indicators were prioritized according to value using the contingency functions developed by the SMEs.

CONCLUSION

Our article provides an actionable guide to applying ProMES, which can be adapted to the needs of various industries, including measure selection and modification from existing data sources, and proposing new measures. Future work should address both logistical considerations (e.g., data capture, common data/programming language) and lingering measurement challenges, such as operationalizating measures to be meaningful and interpretable across health care settings.