Search

Abstract Background Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide and a leading cause of cardiorenal disease and mortality. Only one-third of individuals with T2D receive care as recommended by the American Diabetes Association’s clinical practice guidelines. Effective strategies are needed to accelerate the implementation of guideline concordant T2D care. Methods The Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes (MCT2D) is a statewide population health collaborative quality initiative (CQI) developed to improve the care of all people with T2D in Michigan. MCT2D has developed a learning health system with physician organizations and their constituent practices to support quality improvement initiatives focused on (1) improving use of guideline-directed pharmacotherapy to improve cardiorenal outcomes, (2) increasing evidence-based use of continuous glucose monitoring, and (3) supporting use of lower carbohydrate eating patterns. Results Between 2021 and 2022, MCT2D recruited 28 of the 40 Michigan-based physician organizations participating in Blue Cross’ Physician Group Incentive Program with 336 constituent practices and 1357 physicians in primary care (304), endocrinology (21) and nephrology (11). In January 2022, baseline data included a sample of 96,140 unique individuals with T2D. The baseline HbA1c was ≤ 7.0% for 66.3% of patients (n = 32,787), while 14.9% of patients had a most recent HbA1c ≥ 8.0% (n = 7,393). The most recent body mass index (BMI) was ≥ 30.0 for 64.8% of patients (n = 38,516). Discussion MCT2D has organized a statewide collaborative to recruit and engage a diverse and large set of physician organizations and their constituent practices. This is a promising opportunity to accelerate adoption of guideline-concordant care for people with T2D and may be a model for other state or regional collaboratives. Future directions include specific evidence-based interventions targeted at reducing diabetes-linked comorbidities and associated healthcare costs as well as strategies focused on T2D prevention among at-risk populations.

Abstract Background Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is an implementation theory that can be used to explain how and why implementation strategies work or not in particular circumstances. We used it to understand the mechanisms that lead to the adoption and routinization of palliative care within hemodialysis centers. Methods We employed a longitudinal, mixed methods approach to comprehensively evaluate the implementation of palliative care practices among ten hemodialysis centers participating in an Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough- Series learning collaborative. Qualitative methods included longitudinal observations of collaborative activities, and interviews with implementers at the end of the study. We used an inductive and deductive approach to thematic analysis informed by NPT constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) and implementation outcomes. The NoMAD survey, which measures NPT constructs, was completed by implementers at each hemodialysis center during early and late implementation. Results The four mechanisms posited in NPT had a dynamic and layered relationship during the implementation process. Collaborative participants participated because they believed in the value and legitimacy of palliative care for patients receiving hemodialysis and thus had high levels of cognitive participation at the start. Didactic Learning Sessions were important for building practice coherence, and sense-making was solidified through testing new skills in practice and first-hand observation during coaching visits by an expert. Collective action was hampered by limited time among team members and practical issues such as arranging meetings with patients. Reflexive monitoring of the positive benefit to patient and family experiences was key in shifting mindsets from disease-centric towards a patient-centered model of care. NoMAD survey scores showed modest improvement over time, with collective action having the lowest scores. Conclusions NPT was a useful framework for understanding the implementation of palliative care practices within hemodialysis centers. We found a nonlinear relationship among the mechanisms which is reflected in our model of implementation of palliative care practices through a learning collaborative. These findings suggest that the implementation of complex practices such as palliative care may be more successful through iterative learning and practice opportunities as the mechanisms for change are layered and mutually reinforcing. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04125537 . Registered 14 October 2019 – Retrospectively registered.

Background: Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is an implementation theory that can be used to explain how and why implementation strategies work or not in particular circumstances. We used it to understand the mechanisms that lead to the adoption and routinization of palliative care within hemodialysis centers. Methods: We employed a longitudinal, mixed methods approach to comprehensively evaluate the implementation of palliative care practices among ten hemodialysis centers participating in an Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough- Series learning collaborative. Qualitative methods included longitudinal observations of collaborative activities, and interviews with implementers at the end of the study. We used an inductive and deductive approach to thematic analysis informed by NPT constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) and implementation outcomes. The NoMAD survey, which measures NPT constructs, was completed by implementers at each hemodialysis center during early and late implementation. Results: The four mechanisms posited in NPT had a dynamic and layered relationship during the implementation process. Collaborative participants participated because they believed in the value and legitimacy of palliative care for patients receiving hemodialysis and thus had high levels of cognitive participation at the start. Didactic Learning Sessions were important for building practice coherence, and sense-making was solidified through testing new skills in practice and first-hand observation during coaching visits by an expert. Collective action was hampered by limited time among team members and practical issues such as arranging meetings with patients. Reflexive monitoring of the positive benefit to patient and family experiences was key in shifting mindsets from disease-centric towards a patient-centered model of care. NoMAD survey scores showed modest improvement over time, with collective action having the lowest scores. Conclusions: NPT was a useful framework for understanding the implementation of palliative care practices within hemodialysis centers. We found a nonlinear relationship among the mechanisms which is reflected in our model of implementation of palliative care practices through a learning collaborative. These findings suggest that the implementation of complex practices such as palliative care may be more successful through iterative learning and practice opportunities as the mechanisms for change are layered and mutually reinforcing. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04125537. Registered 14 October 2019 – Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Transitional-aged youth (TAY) with mental health and/or addictions (MHA) concerns and their families experience significant challenges finding, accessing, and transitioning through needed MHA care. To develop appropriate supports that assist TAY and their families in navigating MHA care, their experiences of transitions in the MHA care system must be better understood. This scoping review identifies and explores the needs, barriers, and facilitators for TAY and their families when transitioning through MHA care. Methods: This scoping review commenced with a search of five relevant databases. Three research team members were involved in title, abstract, and full-text scanning and data extraction. Sources focusing on TAY anywhere between the ages of 12–29 years and meeting the study objectives were included. Extractions compiled background and narrative information about the nature and extent of the data. Analysis and synthesis of findings involved numerical description of the general information extracted (e.g., numbers of sources by country) and thematic analysis of narrative information extracted (e.g., family involvement in TAY help-seeking). Results: A total of 5894 sources were identified. Following title and abstract scanning, 1037 sources remained for full-text review. A total of 66 sources were extracted. Findings include background information about extracted sources, in addition to five themes that emerged pertaining to barriers and facilitators to access and transitions through care and the needs and roles of TAY and families in supporting help-seeking and care transitions: holistic supports, proactive preparation, empowering TAY and families, collaborative relationships, and systemic considerations. These five themes demonstrate approaches to care that can ensure TAY and families' needs are met, barriers are mitigated, and facilitators are enhanced. Conclusion: This review provides essential contextual information regarding TAY with MHA concerns and their families' needs when seeking care. Such findings lend to an enhanced understanding of how MHA programs can support this population's needs, involve family members as appropriate, reduce the barriers experienced, and work to build upon existing facilitators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background In increasingly constrained healthcare budgets worldwide, efforts to improve quality and reduce costs are vital. Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) are often used in healthcare settings to implement proven clinical interventions within local and national programs. The cost of this method of implementation, however, is cited as a barrier to use. This systematic review aims to identify and describe studies reporting on costs and cost-effectiveness of QICs when used to implement clinical guidelines in healthcare. Methods Multiple databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, EconLit and ProQuest) were searched for economic evaluations or cost studies of QICs in healthcare. Studies were included if they reported on economic evaluations or costs of QICs. Two authors independently reviewed citations and full text papers. Key characteristics of eligible studies were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Evers CHEC-List was used for full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness findings were interpreted through the Johanna Briggs Institute ‘three by three dominance matrix tool’ to guide conclusions. Currencies were converted to United States dollars for 2018 using OECD and World Bank databases. Results Few studies reported on costs or economic evaluations of QICs despite their use in healthcare. Eight studies across multiple healthcare settings in acute and long-term care, community addiction treatment and chronic disease management were included. Five were considered good quality and favoured the establishment of QICs as cost-effective implementation methods. The cost savings to the healthcare setting identified in these studies outweighed the cost of the collaborative itself. Conclusions Potential cost savings to the health care system in both acute and chronic conditions may be possible by applying QICs at scale. However, variations in effectiveness, costs and elements of the method within studies, indicated that caution is needed. Consistent identification of costs and description of the elements applied in QICs would better inform decisions for their use and may reduce perceived barriers. Lack of studies with negative findings may have been due to publication bias. Future research should include economic evaluations with societal perspectives of costs and savings and the cost-effectiveness of elements of QICs. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018107417.

Background: In increasingly constrained healthcare budgets worldwide, efforts to improve quality and reduce costs are vital. Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) are often used in healthcare settings to implement proven clinical interventions within local and national programs. The cost of this method of implementation, however, is cited as a barrier to use. This systematic review aims to identify and describe studies reporting on costs and cost-effectiveness of QICs when used to implement clinical guidelines in healthcare.Methods: Multiple databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, EconLit and ProQuest) were searched for economic evaluations or cost studies of QICs in healthcare. Studies were included if they reported on economic evaluations or costs of QICs. Two authors independently reviewed citations and full text papers. Key characteristics of eligible studies were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Evers CHEC-List was used for full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness findings were interpreted through the Johanna Briggs Institute 'three by three dominance matrix tool' to guide conclusions. Currencies were converted to United States dollars for 2018 using OECD and World Bank databases.Results: Few studies reported on costs or economic evaluations of QICs despite their use in healthcare. Eight studies across multiple healthcare settings in acute and long-term care, community addiction treatment and chronic disease management were included. Five were considered good quality and favoured the establishment of QICs as cost-effective implementation methods. The cost savings to the healthcare setting identified in these studies outweighed the cost of the collaborative itself.Conclusions: Potential cost savings to the health care system in both acute and chronic conditions may be possible by applying QICs at scale. However, variations in effectiveness, costs and elements of the method within studies, indicated that caution is needed. Consistent identification of costs and description of the elements applied in QICs would better inform decisions for their use and may reduce perceived barriers. Lack of studies with negative findings may have been due to publication bias. Future research should include economic evaluations with societal perspectives of costs and savings and the cost-effectiveness of elements of QICs.Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018107417. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When depression accompanies diabetes, it complicates treatment, portends worse outcomes and increases health care costs. A collaborative care case-management model, previously tested in an urban managed care organization in the US, achieved significant reduction of depressive symptoms, improved diabetes disease control and patient-reported outcomes, and saved money. While impressive, these findings need to be replicated and extended to other healthcare settings. Our objective is to comprehensively evaluate a collaborative care model for comorbid depression and type 2 diabetes within a Canadian primary care setting. Methods/design: We initiated the TeamCare model in four Primary Care Networks in Northern Alberta. The intervention involves a nurse care manager guiding patient-centered care with family physicians and consultant physician specialists to monitor progress and develop tailored care plans. Patients eligible for the intervention will be identified using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 as a screen for depressive symptoms. Care managers will then guide patients through three phases: 1) improving depressive symptoms, 2) improving blood glucose, blood pressure and cholesterol, and 3) improving lifestyle behaviors. We will employ the RE-AIM framework for a comprehensive and mixed-methods approach to our evaluation. Effectiveness will be assessed using a controlled "on-off" trial design, whereby eligible patients would be alternately enrolled in the TeamCare intervention or usual care on a monthly basis. All patients will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Our primary analyses will be based on changes in two outcomes: depressive symptoms, and a multivariable, scaled marginal model for the combined outcome of global disease control (i.e., A1c, systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol). Our planned enrolment of 168 patients will provide greater than 80% power to observe clinically important improvements in all measured outcomes. Direct costing of all intervention components and measurement of all health care utilization using linked administrative databases will be used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to usual care. Discussion: Our comprehensive evaluation will generate evidence to reliability, effectiveness and sustainability of this collaborative care model for patients with chronic diseases and depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]