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

The journey to a learning health system in primary care: a qualitative case study utilising an embedded research approach

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems may be resilient and adaptive, but they are not fit for purpose in their current state. Increasing threats to health system sustainability have underscored the need to move towards a learning health system in which research and data are used routinely in clinical practice to facilitate system improvement. This study aimed to establish which elements of the learning health system were being realised within a university-based general practice and determine acceptability from staff to embrace further the transition towards a learning health system.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with practice staff, including clinical and administrative staff, to determine the current state of the learning health system in the practice. An embedded researcher was placed within the general practice on a part-time basis to investigate the learning health system model. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed based on the National Academy of Medicine's framework of learning health systems.

RESULTS

In total, 32 (91%) practice staff were interviewed, comprising general practitioners (n = 15), nurses (n = 3), administrative staff (n = 13), and a psychologist (n = 1). Participants indicated that the practice was operating with several characteristics of a learning health system (e.g., emphasising science and informatics; focusing on patient-clinician partnerships; applying incentives; supporting a continuous learning culture; and establishing structures and governance for learning). These measures were supported by the university-based setting, and resultant culture of learning. Nevertheless, there were areas of the practice where the learning health system could be strengthened, specifically relating to the use of patient data and informatics. Staff generally expressed willingness to engage with the process of strengthening the learning health system within their practice.

CONCLUSION

Although the idea of a learning health system has been gaining traction in recent years, there are comparatively few empirical studies presented in the literature. This research presents a case study of a general practice that is operating as a learning health system and highlights the utility of using the learning health system framework.

A Rapid Realist Review of Quality Care Process Metrics Implementation in Nursing and Midwifery Practice

Quality measurement initiatives promote quality improvement in healthcare but can be challenging to implement effectively. This paper presents a Rapid Realist Review (RRR) of published literature on Quality Care-Process Metrics (QCP-M) implementation in nursing and midwifery practice. An RRR informed by RAMESES II standards was conducted as an efficient means to synthesize evidence using an expert panel. The review involved research question development, quality appraisal, data extraction, and evidence synthesis. Six program theories summarised below identify the key characteristics that promote positive outcomes in QCP-M implementation. Program Theory 1: Focuses on the evidence base and accessibility of the QCP-M and their ease of use by nurses and midwives working in busy and complex care environments. Program Theory 2: Examines the influence of external factors on QCP-M implementation. Program Theory 3: Relates to existing cultures and systems within clinical sites. Program Theory 4: Relates to nurses’ and midwives’ knowledge and beliefs. Program Theory 5: Builds on the staff theme of Programme Theory four, extending the culture of organizational learning, and highlights the meaningful engagement of nurses and midwives in the implementation process as a key characteristic of success. Program Theory 6: Relates to patient needs. The results provide nursing and midwifery policymakers and professionals with evidence-based program theory that can be translated into action-orientated strategies to help guide successful QCP-M implementation.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

Implementation of a first-trimester prognostic model to improve screening for gestational diabetes mellitus

Background

Improvement in the accuracy of identifying women who are at risk to develop gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is warranted, since timely diagnosis and treatment improves the outcomes of this common pregnancy disorder. Although prognostic models for GDM are externally validated and outperform current risk factor based selective approaches, there is little known about the impact of such models in day-to-day obstetric care.

Methods

A prognostic model was implemented as a directive clinical prediction rule, classifying women as low- or high-risk for GDM, with subsequent distinctive care pathways including selective midpregnancy testing for GDM in high-risk women in a prospective multicenter birth cohort comprising 1073 pregnant women without pre-existing diabetes and 60 obstetric healthcare professionals included in nine independent midwifery practices and three hospitals in the Netherlands (effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 study). Model performance (c-statistic) and implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability) were evaluated after 6 months by indicators and implementation instruments (NoMAD; MIDI).

Results

The adherence to the prognostic model (c-statistic 0.85 (95%CI 0.81–0.90)) was 95% (n = 1021). Healthcare professionals scored 3.7 (IQR 3.3–4.0) on implementation instruments on a 5-point Likert scale. Important facilitators were knowledge, willingness and confidence to use the model, client cooperation and opportunities for reconfiguration. Identified barriers mostly related to operational and organizational issues. Regardless of risk-status, pregnant women appreciated first-trimester information on GDM risk-status and lifestyle advice to achieve risk reduction, respectively 89% (n = 556) and 90% (n = 564)).

Conclusions

The prognostic model was successfully implemented and well received by healthcare professionals and pregnant women. Prognostic models should be recommended for adoption in guidelines.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03749-x.

Barriers to implementation of STRIDE, a national study to prevent fall-related injuries

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Evaluations of complex models of care for older adults may benefit from simultaneous assessment of intervention implementation. The STRIDE (Strategies To Reduce Injuries and Develop confidence in Elders) pragmatic trial evaluated the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention to reduce serious fall injuries in older adults. We conducted multi-level stakeholder interviews to identify barriers to STRIDE intervention implementation and understand efforts taken to mitigate these barriers.

DESIGN

Qualitative interviews with key informants.

SETTING

Ten clinical trial sites affiliated with practices that provided primary care for persons at increased risk for fall injuries.

PARTICIPANTS

Specially trained registered nurses working as Falls Care Managers (FCMs) who delivered the intervention (n = 13 individual interviews), Research Staff who supervised trial implementation locally (n = 10 group interviews, 23 included individuals), and members of Central Project Management and the National Patient Stakeholder Council who oversaw national implementation (n = 2 group interviews, six included individuals).

MEASUREMENTS

A semi-structured interview guide derived from the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR).

RESULTS

We identified eight key barriers to STRIDE intervention implementation. FCMs navigated complex relationships with patients and families while working with Research Staff to implement the intervention in primary care practices with limited clinical space, variable provider buy-in, and significant primary care practice staff and provider turnover. The costs of the intervention to individual patients and medical practices amplified these barriers. Efforts to mitigate these barriers varied depending on the needs and opportunities of each primary care setting.

CONCLUSION

The many barriers to implementation and the variability in how stakeholders addressed these locally may have affected the overall STRIDE intervention's effectiveness. Future pragmatic trials should incorporate simultaneous implementation aims to better understand how research interventions translate into clinical care that improves the lives of older adults.

Redesigning primary care in an academic medical center: lessons, challenges, and opportunities

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient access, provider productivity, and patient satisfaction during a 24-month redesign process of an academic medical center, which requires balance between clinical and educational missions.

METHODS

A series of activities were conducted to optimize primary care across 17 attending physicians, 6 Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), and 39 residents. Patient access was defined as the next available appointment for either existing/established patients or new patients. Productivity was measured using panel sizes for each provider. Patient satisfaction was based on the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CGCAHPS).

RESULTS

Despite decreasing clinical effort to allow faculty and APPs to participate in education and research, there was an overall increase in access for both new and established patients, and an increase the percent of each providers' panel that was full from 78.89% in 2017 to 115.29% in 2019. When comparing panel sizes for the 11 faculty present before and after strategic changes, we found significant increase in both overall panel size, and actual to expected ratios between 2017 and 2019. In addition, throughout the time period, patient satisfaction remained high with no significant changes.

CONCLUSIONS

While this project was limited to one site, the inclusion of a set of well-planned metrics, and tracking of processes over time can provide insight for ongoing primary care redesign efforts at similar sites seeking to balance the academic mission with clinical productivity and high patient satisfaction.

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

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